SPA Went 


tad ay 1 ad me 
r Steer 
owas ie 


pre ee 


ah? 


ue 
= i 


< 


1 
Msp 
ee 


bert? 


od 


i 


P 


Neate! Seana sora re peep tess ; elise f IE 
i z 


ae 


= 


™ 
ios 
BENta 


de 


tae 
Sas sce 


> 
yt) 


svar 
Piaeress 


tet 


rn 
» 


ass 


isan 


ve 


£m - ne lw y ‘4 ey Panne A pert 
sep ; , r 3 oy it 
eee ar | . 
~ ' Seite Dae 
eee 4 
sep omdrawiwine eae ar 
ene 


Nese 
eyersiaae 
sited hese 


antes 
res 


fend 


oy Sheds 
eesti es 


Sahl 


qscet : eh . : ‘ ; , J y : , : ves : . : ae . Sie 
« = 4 z a > = pcan 2 fe 


223r6 descents Webel ee tp Y fete uy SO A Ce Ey notes ‘ 


Coun 
eariee! 


pasts 
heise gaat 


cinres 


pe BPE eee 


Spee ee 


PCr They 
nophed 


Fatt ye wine 4 
rT ee 





KAN OF PRINGS 


EPS 









eh 


” 


aes 
eet) ae eae 


; r fy 
Shale Aas Pah 
We kes 


Peace 
; AAA \A ai 


ibs)! 
A A aM 
situ NaN Al 
an anh ats 4 
Welt A es 
Ae MN ay 
FTAA ert 
ve Ae y 
YA a Rae 


) ' pel \ 


te weith : 
SHA ROR tA ce iH tay Re, 
y \ ’ ' Ne 


; ” 
rink vr, 


oe 


me 4) ft vere i "4 My. 
HM ins writ 
ADORED 
ato Meike 


hte 
ta 
" 
4 


uy Chany Aji a ty 
Dias H\) ALS) 
erg hhagh ab" 4 
Neg 


| 
9, 
f 


! TAP Niche 


wren 
} i ‘AOE 


: PN ag # 


MN Feen ttn 


ewe 








Ki Ae 
MT eat Ty 


: a ' ae ri 
eaves i. ae 
sty h 


ey Vis 
te) Ih | 
i ey yr 
a 


A es 
ee ft Tle 





ee 
di 4 iN 


Mf 


ity Wl 


eh 


an 


AMOR cs pit it 
Bas RUC Aa 
‘ull wy iaide 


y 





LIFE AND LETTERS OF 
WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


yh eae 
+ ee ly 
ie 


A! 


sd 
v7 


me erat * 

en Me ce 
ae Canin Oe 
, we fakh of 


J ‘ 


Th 4 & eu LP 7 1 
i 7} ' > 


<hy 
a, 
HS 


a " 
Oi fe 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https ://archive.org/details/lifelettersofwil0Osute 





iN OF PRIA 
P 


Life and Letters (* 


DH” UAL OLR 
WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


A Champion of Unity 


BY 


\~ 


JOHN WALLACE SUTER 


Tllustrated 





THE CENTURY CO. 
New York & London 


rad ‘ 
(4 JOA9 | 


CoPYRIGHT, 1925, By 
THE CENTURY CO. 


PRINTED IN JU. 8. A. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENT 


GraTEFUL acknowledgment is made to all those who have helped 
in the preparation of this volume by supplying letters and other 
material, or by patient and sympathetic reading of the proofs. 

More especially record is here made of the painstaking labors 
of Francis C. Huntington, who with filial devotion gathered to- 
gether the letters which in themselves so completely set forth 
the story of his father’s life and the aims and ideals which he 
exemplified. 


PALA, 
rye 1 bal ali 
NF cee gies| Wench 
dai ) mo it 
‘ Teese ene Le 


7) 


‘4 
ie 1 
el 

A 

\ 

i 


i) 





CHAPTER 


CONTENTS 


Tue Earty YEars 

CoLLEGE AND AFTER . 

Ati Saint’s Cuurcu, Worcester 

At Ay Saints 

Tue Cuurcn Bryonp Tue Parisy 
REvisinc THE Book or CommMon PRAYER . 
Tue Cuurcu Ipra 

Grace Cuurcu, New York . 


Ar Grace CuurcH 


At Grace Cuurcu: Tue Prayer Boox AGAIN . 


At Grace Cuurcu: Hergsizs 

Tue CaTHEDRAL 

ConTINUING THE CHuRcH Unity CAMPAIGN . 
Cuurcn Unity Iprats 

Tue Last Years . 


InpEx 


138 


. 162 
. 218 
. 230 
Meo a 
. 303 
. 882 
. 392 
. 468 
. 523 
. 589 


a 
eh 
bay's 
nh 


ate ‘ 

Wis aii 
Lay 4 pal 

eat i: fi % 4 

h ‘ I uu 
' 


iM 
1 
Wi 
a 


AY UTD 
, he 
"aay 


nk : 


NON AW , 
A Us 1s, : ; ‘ 
Cet ly tay B/ ‘ Ay 
RY Gt j ei \ Tus ay Pi 
Ny Gare! 


NY 


i tiMarDiia 


Wiha) 


mts 5 
ae bt 


\ 


bat % 

ON, DEAN Vd = 
Hf ee iy J 
bat de 


ald nih 
Dees 
Were bt 


Prey 


Ms 


yee 


a 


i Me ; re gel) ies Phe NP tee Yel 
Hig iW Ny of i ji i Wid oP aa ete csth Ke 





ILLUSTRATIONS 


Wituiam R. Huntincron . . . . . . Frontispiece 

FACING 

PAGE 
HunTINGTON as A ScHootpoy at Norwich . . . . 16 
HuntTINGTON In COLLEGE Days RAT CER CIMT os URAL NY RUS CR TaN $2 
dae PirstoALL Saints’, WORCESTER 6) 4 8 ee Ba 
DRL TLONTINGTON? AT) WORCESTER! |.) ana an meee Oe BS 
ARTE WPHE IRE VAT OV) OR CHEST ER) (layin annie 2. nN me atin regs 
PELL ALN ES VOCS TER tlie. Mean math unMS UNIAN Sy ROC RA Gees an ve Sg 
Dr. HuntTincTon In THE Stupy at Att Saints? . .li, 136 
ASA GUAT R ORONS Aya ei MeN OU ARE ART TN Ck) OOO 
Cre rt CU Ta ec Lan Cain ATMO Rn DML ROR Mt eet tc OA, 


Tue Huntineton Ciose anp Ovrpoor Punurir at Grace 


CHURCH A tat WOE A INS eR APRS SRN SAL TH BH? 6 
THE Stanparp Prayer Boox or 1892. . . . .. . 289 
Wittm Reep Huntineron, tHe Recror or Grace 

CHURCH STR EI EATING PESV HEA RL rok gi RMAC UTA SW RELL 2 TS 
Huntincron Memoriar CHaret, CATHEDRAL OF Sr. 

TEP EL Fe LEME NA anny IR ye HIE SRY RR a nS 
ESD CG AM Wiss kod eek s MDG ps mnN Mi Ln Re TON AGA EER AAT AN oy CARR Hef 


Dr. Huntineton anp His GRANDCHILDREN . . «sg. 496 


4 
it Pa) 
(yn ee 


ois 


pee ah 
hie 
bee 
are 
ae 


oof Vines RY: sr 

SIN BA, ual ae 

eae ay Re 
oe? 


M 





THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF WILLIAM 
REED HUNTINGTON 


A CHAMPION OF UNITY 


BAM 
A) 


a 
v 


ca 


PVR 


wed iat 


Putt s Me eet Panga BARON est etn 
| ne SAAN SCR RE RRR ie aN Ct AH PAN Ay 
NRG A RSLS CNP RIAN ESA SHH a 
iN HA : otis ‘ iy "7 yi i nh wes rN ul vty i itt Hi 
“1 NAN , ~ 


Wee 


uve | 


hie 


nie 


} uy 


¥ 
ni 
bah 


ny 


ay 





THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF 
WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


A CHAMPION OF UNITY 
I 


THE EARLY YEARS 


\ X ieee REED HUNTINGTON was 
born at Lowell, Massachusetts, September 
20, 1888, the son of Elisha Huntington, the 
most prominent physician of the city, and Hannah 
(Hinckley) Huntington, a woman of marked cultiva- 
tion and refinement. It was a good place to be born, 
and a good family to be born into. Lowell was in those 
days a distinctly American city of about eighteen thou- 
sand people, having leaped to those dimensions in the 
fifteen years of its existence; and it was proud of its ac- 
complishments and ideals. It was set, moreover, in the 
midst of a lovely country, which gave a growing boy the 
favoring opportunities of country surroundings. 

Dr. Huntington was the most distinguished physi- 
cian of the neighborhood, his practice extending into all 
the adjacent towns. But he was more than that. He 
was not only friend as well as physician, but he was 
easily the first citizen, and this was testified to by his 

* 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


being elected for three terms mayor of the city, and 
once lieutenant-governor of the State. 

The Huntingtons were of good stock, not only 
sturdy and self-respecting, and imbued with Puritan 
ideals, but of a quality which produces leadership. 
Huntingtons of standing and influence are to be found 
among the earlier settlers. The Hinckleys were of 
Mayflower stock. One Hinckley ancestor of the name 
of Richard Bourne displayed characteristics which fore- 
shadowed those of William Reed Huntington. He is 
spoken of as a combination of missionary and states- 
man, and he spent his life working among the Indians 
of Cape Cod. If his counsels had prevailed, it is said 
that there need have been no outbreak of war between 
Indians and white men, since he understood both sides 
and was far-seeing. Richard Bourne’s descendants in 
the direct line, Shearjashub, Melatiah, and Sylvanus, 
were all men of distinction and holders of public office, 
and Sylvanus was a man of wealth, affecting the style 
of an English country gentleman, and with leanings 
toward the Episcopal Church. It was his daughter 
who married Isaac Hinckley, the great-grandfather of 
William Huntington. Isaac was a classmate of Sam- 
uel Adams at Harvard and an active patriot, Isaac’s 
great-grandfather, Samuel, having settled in Scituate 
in 1635. The Hinckleys are spoken of as an honest, 
industrious, and prudent race, zealous in the advocacy 
of whatever opinions they adopted. The most distin- 
guished of the name was Governor Thomas Hinckley 
of the Plymouth Colony. William’s grandfather, As- 

A 


THE EARLY YEARS 


ahel Huntington, was for many years pastor of the 
church in Topsfield. As for the name, William Reed, 
it was not a family name but the name of his father’s 
friend. 

The home was a sheltered and jealously guarded one, 
and William was kept very strictly within its limits. 
One who knew him in his boyhood testifies that he was 
not to be found with the rest of the boys at dancing- 
school, on the ball-field, or in the swimming-hole. His 
primary education was in private schools. He had ap- 
parently no intimates. This seclusion was encouraged 
in part, doubtless, because of the boy’s lack of physical 
ruggedness, but also through a desire to preserve him 
from moral contamination. There was thus laid in his 
first years the foundation for that sequestered life 
which characterized him, and for that aloofness, some- 
times referred to as coldness, which to many seemed his 
chief personal characteristic. There was nothing of 
the hail-fellow-well-met about his approaches. He was 
a lonely man, apart from his fellows, by the testimony 
even of those who knew him and, in a sense, knew bet- 
ter. They knew that he was a man of quick, warm 
sympathies and of sincerity and unfaltering faithful- 
ness in friendship. ‘And yet,” relates one who knew 
him all his life, “a dear friend of his one day, when we 
were alone together in the study at Grace Church, said 
to me: ‘Aren’t you afraid of Dr. Huntington? I 
am’; and I had to acknowledge that I shared that feel- 
ing.” It would be a mistake, however, to exaggerate 
this aloofness or reserve. His home had in it a certain 

5 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


quality of alertness, and readiness in give and take, 
which was due to his mother’s influence, and to that of 
his aunt, his mother’s sister. He drew, all uncon- 
sciously, from this quality of his early surroundings; 
and later his reserve was pierced through, now and 
again, by a veritable sparkle of quick-wittedness in con- 
versation, and by that choicest of all social gifts, the 
ability to draw out the best in others. 

In the home life the perils that always attend the 
progress of the youngest were his. It might well have 
been that he would be spoiled, or would turn out to be 
a prig. ‘These dangers were augmented by the fact 
that at five years old he narrowly escaped death through 
a serious illness, and that his precocity excited the 
family admiration. At the age of five he is presented 
with a Bible, and thanks the donor in these words tran- 
scribed by his mother in a letter: “I thank you for my 
Bible. I am learning to read one chapter, and I hope 
I shall learn to read more. My Aunt Mary says you 
did not send me that Bible because it had a pretty cover, 
but to make me a good man. Is this God’s Bible? 
Mother told me God put it into the hearts of men and 
they printed it. I love my Bible very much indeed be- 
cause I want it to make me good. Uncle sent me a 
transparent slate and pencil, and I broke the glass the 
same day. I was very sorry, but Mother told me she 
would get another glass... . Your Bible will not 
break.” His mother adds: “I wish he may always 
receive its truths with the same confiding faith, and read 
them with the interest they now inspire in his youthful 

6 


THE EARLY YEARS 


mind. He is now learning (and trying to spell out) the 
189th Psalm. His memory outstrips his knowledge of 
words, and he learns it by heart before he can read ibiy 

His grandmother Huntington, the widow of his 
grandfather, Asahel, who had been the Congregational 
pastor of the Topsfield Church, in the course of a letter 
brimming over with the pious and stilted phraseology 
which characterized the epistolary efforts of the time, 
says to him, “I hope that you and Martin Luther will 
continue that friendship which seemed to subsist, and 
that you will be mutually benefited.” This seems a 
somewhat mystical, and also a prophetic utterance. 
Or can it be that Martin Luther was a four-footed pet? 

That William so successfully escaped the perils which 
beset him was due, doubtless, in part to the ideals and 
practical sanity of the family life in general, but also in 
no small part to his own inherent strength of character. 
In spite of everything, he grew up appreciative and 
grateful in the face of the surrounding and sheltering 
lives, and at the same time independent and self-reliant. 

His father provided him with an ideal of service and 
unselfish philanthropy which excited his admiration and 
called for imitation. He never doubted in his earlier 
years that he too must be a physician and follow in that 
father’s footsteps. His mother taught him the love of 
literature, and from her he inherited his talent for 
verse-writing, and his gift for symbolic thinking, and 
for aptitude in phrase and sureness of touch in utter- 
ance. His brother Frank, many years older, took over 
some of the father’s responsibilities, helping William 

7 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


financially, when the time came, with his education, 
freely and sympathetically admiring his brother’s abil- 
ities, and scrupulously reframing from any attempts to 
coerce his decisions and dependence by advice or re- 
straint. Indeed, it may truthfully be said of this 
brother that he devotedly gave his all to the securing of 
William’s education, and to the insuring of that success- 
ful future in which he so proudly believed. His older 
sister Mary combined in her regard for him a motherly 
concern and anxious solicitude with a sisterly idolatry 
of his qualities and attainments. Thijs double attitude 
she continued throughout her life, even until the time 
when they were both well advanced in years; and she 
bored her brother not infrequently by both her motherly 
and sisterly exhibitions. But he endured them with 
equanimity, and returned them with genuine devotion, 
occasionally scolding her with affectionate remon- 
strance, now for the motherly worriments, and again 
for the exaggerations of her sisterly worship. There 
was still another brother, James. He was the eldest, 
and far removed from a direct and personal touch upon 
William’s life. He was, nevertheless, a molding in- 
fluence, honored from afar, and most of all for his dis- 
tinguished service in the Civil War. 

William’s childhood was unquestionably a happy one. 
He learned what was expected of him in the schools of 
Lowell, and a great deal besides, Many years after- 
ward in declining an invitation to address the school- 
children of that city, upon the occasion of some anni- 
versary celebration, he speaks of “the honest pride 

8 


THE EARLY YEARS 


which should be theirs in remembering that they were 
born within sound of the factory bells,” and testifies to 
the fact that Lowell was indeed his Thrums, by adding, 
“Nothing shall ever persuade me that anywhere else 
there are public buildings so imposing, walks and rides 
so attractive, or river scenery so fine as those to which 
my childhood was used.” 

When it was decided to send the growing boy away 
to school, he was sent in 1853 to Norwich University, 
in Vermont, where he remained for two years. This 
institution, originally known as the American Literary 
and Scientific Military Academy, received him into its 
engineering department and gave him the garb of a 
soldier. In the class ahead of him was George Dewey, 
the future admiral. Whatever else he may have owed 
to Norwich, his erect carriage and soldier-like bearing 
doubtless derived from there, and these gave him a 
commanding dignity, in spite of his slight stature, which 
served him well in his hours of debate and public ad- 
dress. His final preparation for college was accom- 
plished at home, through a private tutor. At the age 
of fifteen, the inevitable collecting mania, characteristic 
of youth, was displayed in persistent and ingenious ef- 
forts to collect autographs of the great, or the momen- 
tarily famous or notorious. At the same time we find 
him writing letters in verse, one a description of a trip 
to Ticonderoga, written while at Norwich, and sent to 
his sister Mary. It is entitled “Child Huntington’s 
Pilgrimage.” This habit of letter-writing in verse was 
directly derived from his mother, who was addicted to 

9 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


the practice. Indeed, the favorite home game of the 
family circle was “the poetry game,” and “The Arabian 
Nights” was at one time the boy’s constant companion. 
At the same time he was greatly interested in chem- 
istry, and fond of making experiments. This combina- 
tion of poetry and chemistry is significant of the man’s 
future quality, where imagination and exactitude found 
their interplay. 

The church life of the family was in St. Anne’s, 
where the rector, Dr. Edson, was in his vigor, and in the 
earlier part of that rectorship which was to last for sixty 
years, indeed all through Huntington’s years at 
Worcester. Dr. Edson was an influential and re- 
spected citizen, and an uncompromising High-church- 
man. What first led Huntington’s parents to turn 
from Congregationalism to the Episcopal Church is 
not clear, though it is easy to imagine that it was his 
mother who led the way, since predilection for episco- 
pacy was in her blood, and because she was of a nature 
to be appealed to by the usages and ritual of the church. 
That the boy faithfully did his boy’s part in the family 
church-going at St. Anne’s is not to be doubted. Nor 
is it to be doubted that its services had their influence 
in implanting in him a love of the Prayer Book, though 
by his own confession the parish church played a very 
minor part in his religious development. 


10 


II 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


vard. That he went to Harvard at all was an out- 

come reached after prolonged family debate, and 
at the end of a period of uncertainty. Both his 
father and grandfather were graduated at Dartmouth. 
The entrance examinations were passed without much 
difficulty, though he always maintained that in college 
he was much handicapped by inadequate preparation. 
This is perhaps a conventional, and traditionally re- 
peated, complaint, rather than the statement of an actu- 
ality. Nor was it book-learning, possibly, to which he 
had reference, so much as to other things. 

His previous training had not fitted him successfully 
for the rough-and-tumble of college fellowship, nor 
had his physical training kept pace with his intel- 
lectual and spiritual preparation. At the “rough- 
house” of the freshman-sophomore football game, in 
those days the important opening event of the freshman 
year, he was a looker-on rather than a participant, “dis- 
creetly keeping out of the mélées.” In his junior year, 
when the famous Harvard crew, in which President 
Eliot and Alexander Agassiz rowed, beat seven com- 
petitors over a six-mile course, Huntington’s part in 

11 


[: the autumn of 1855 Huntington entered Har- 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


the athletic event was characteristically the writing of 
two songs in Irish brogue. These were esteemed a 
great success, and were printed in the “Harvard Mag- 
azine.” But the interest in athletics in those days was 
not what it was destined to become, for it is related that 
there were no students at the Cambridge landing to wel- 
come the victorious crew, but only one solitary man, 
that man being the Rev. Frederick Dan Huntington, the 
preacher to the university. William had been present, 
at the beginning of his freshman year, when the Rev. 
Mr. Huntington had been inducted into that office. 

His mother testifies in regard to the young freshman, 
at home for a short vacation, in a letter written to his 
brother, that “he is growing in stature and making 
progress in learning,” and that “he has acquired none 
of the airs of the freshman, but appears with all his 
natural freshness, and simplicity of heart and man- 
ners.” 

This quiet and studious simplicity of life appears to 
have characterized all his course. His literary ability 
was recognized, and he became an editor of the “Har- 
vard Monthly,” and in his senior year was chosen by his 
classmates class poet, his friend Abbott becoming at the 
same time the odist. This election was celebrated by 
the family as a veritable triumph, and a round-robin, 
written by father, mother, aunt, and sister, was sent to 
him. 

One of the most potent influences in his college life 
was that of the college preacher, Dr. Huntington, then 
a Unitarian minister, and later to become the ‘distin- 

12 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


guished and influential Bishop of Central New York. 
Many years later, in a letter written shortly after 
Bishop Huntington’s death, William Huntington 
writes: ‘Few indeed have taken such a hold on my 
affections at the time of life when affections are strong- 
est. To his influence as a preacher, I owe my first in- 
terest in religion and religious things.” 

It is worthy of note that it was the decision to send 
the boy to Harvard which was, in a sense, the decisive 
act in turning him toward the Church and the ministry. 
The liberalism of the university, and its Unitarian tend- 
encies which were so dreaded, and which gave pause to 
his parents in their deliberations, were the needed 
things. They were needed to save him from the influ- 
ence of the Episcopal parish of his home town, where 
the pronounced High-churchmanship of the rector 
tended to drive him from the Church. ‘Had no other 
religious influence,” he says in a letter toward the end 
of his life, “come into my life than that of St. Anne’s, 
I fear that long ago I should have gone off into Agnos- 
ticism or Pessimism.” The love of truth which the uni- 
versity inspired, and the pure evangelism of the univer- 
sity’s preacher, caught him at a critical moment in his 
career and devoted him to the Church’s service. His is 
by no means a solitary example of the potency of 
Harvard’s “Christo et Ecclesiz” in claiming the 
Church’s children for her service. 

Another significant influence was that of Professor 
Josiah P. Cook, the professor of chemistry. Professor 
Cook married Huntington’s sister Mary, and the inti- 

13 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


macy of family relationship came to be united with that 
of teacher and friend. Professor Cook combined with 
a thorough and widely recognized scientific accomplish- 
ment a deeply religious spirit, and the combination 
could not fail of its appeal to a young man of Hunting- 
ton’s attitude and characteristics. 

The most potent influence, however, of his college 
course was his friendship with his classmates, and more 
especially with Francis E. Abbott. This relationship 
was of a very intimate character; romantic, indeed, in 
its quality. Writing to his old friend in 1880, after 
a silence of many years, during which their lives had 
drifted apart, he says, “Only one earthly love ever came 
nearer to me than yours did.” With Abbott, Hunt- 
ington tried out, in conversation and correspondence, 
the problems of thought and conduct which beset him, 
and was greatly stimulated by the intercourse and set 
forward toward his ultimate choices and convictions. 
The letters written by Huntington to Abbott during the 
three years immediately following his graduation, up to 
the time of his settlement in Worcester, reveal, as noth- 
ing else could, the course of his development and think- 
ing. 

His decision to enter the ministry and to enter the 
ministry of the Episcopal Church was made in the 
spring of 1859, during the last months of his senior 
year. The decision came naturally and inevitably and 
caused no surprise either to his family or friends. Let- 
ters from his brother and from his classmates show how 

14 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


thoroughly those who knew him best believed in his 
qualifications for the work of a minister, and how sym- 
pathetically they followed him with counsel and en- 
couragement in the making of his choice. A classmate 
writes that he is sure that Huntington is cut out to be 
a minister, that his “impulse to speak” is a pledge of 
future preaching power, and that he has shown himself 
to his friends “a natural father confessor”; while his 
brother “hopes to live” to see him “a sincere, zealous, 
hberal, evangelical minister of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church.” 

In the autumn following his graduation, in order to 
support himself during the period of preparation, he 
followed the course adopted by many a young candi- 
date for orders, that of teaching. He secured at Har- 
vard, under Professor Cook, an instructorship in 
chemistry, and became a proctor, residing in old Massa- 
chusetts. It was a cold winter, and the young proctor 
claims that his room is the coldest in college. He 
writes to his sister of transporting a brick from the lab- 
oratory and heating it to serve as a bed-warmer, and 
adds: “After a truly miserable night the prayer bell 
sounded, and like a dutiful proctor I arose. Water 
was of course in a solid state, so I set my pitcher by 
the fire, and delayed ablutions till after chapel. Dur- 
ing the day things grew worse and worse. I filled my 
coal grate to its utmost capacity, but could still enjoy 
the melancholy satisfaction of seeing my breath go up 
chimney over the glowing anthracite.” 

15 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


At the same time, he began in his own way his prep- 
aration for his future life-work: 


I have opened on Dr. Arnold, and find him grand. He and 
our friend Robertson were kindred souls. I would give the 
world for a fraction of their strength. 


His preparation continued under his friend and ad- 
viser, the college preacher, Dr. Huntington, who had 
now entered the ministry of the Episcopal Church and 
had become the minister of Emmanuel Church in Bos- 
ton. In this parish the young Huntington found the 
outlet for his enthusiasm in practical ways. At first, 
he was a lay worker, and then later was ordained deacon 
and became the assistant minister of the parish. His 
chief care was the charge of the parish’s mission, St. 
Mary’s, and his labors were specially directed to the 
building up of the Sunday-school. At Easter, 1862, 
the young assistant is presented by his friends at Km- 
manuel with a purse of gold, and in the accompanying 
letter they testify to the fact that among all classes, 
“in respect for his talents and affection for him per- 
sonally he stands second to Dr. Huntington only”; and 
they speak of his “untiring faithfulness,” “good judg- 
ment,” and “manly straightforward Christian bearing 
at all times, so far beyond his years.” | 

In November of that year he was to be called to All 
Saints’ Church at Worcester. He was ordained to the 
priesthood, in that church, December 3, 1862, having 
just attained the required twenty-four years of age, 
and the same day began his rectorship, a rectorship 

16 





HUNTINGTON AS A SCHOOLBOY AT NORWICH 





COLLEGE AND AFTER 


which was to continue for twenty-one years. In Sep- 
tember of this year he had become engaged to Theresa 
Reynolds, the youngest daughter of Dr. Edward Rey- 
nolds of Boston, and a niece of Wendell Phillips. 


17 


1 i 
Crd val 


yy hb eat) 3 4 
D WAN erin " 
Che a ag Hy 
ri Sh xe af 
aga 


A a eh * 


rH Ply 
HE Ht tc 
WoO TON AM 
i WN aul 4 
he WeA LAN 
Mb De 
CLOG) 
fi 


hall 
ue 
Pa AY. 
ify 7 


Oye ENON Ft Wi 
a th Ne GP nr 
eG, Hy 
1 Nig > Bf We 4 
ie ORES 


wu 





LETTERS 


pee 
rats oy Aton 


ree 
+ aD 
Aras 


ahi 
hy 


gis 





To Francis ELLINGwoop ABBOT 


Nov. 16th, 756. 
Dear Frank: 

Pardon my not acknowledging your beautiful and delicate 
attention of this noon in words. I know that this is not the 
most fitting method, but fearing lest I might fail to express 
fully my feelings by word of mouth, I thought best not to 
attempt it. 

When I came to Cambridge my anticipations of College life 
were as extravagant as ever were Whittington’s of London, and 
I implicitly believed in the existence of that Utopia which 
Vincent in his recent lecture so eloquently described. 

I expected that friendship would here be had for the ask- 
ing and brotherly love be a drug in the market. 

Of course a few months’ experience dispelled the bright illu- 
sion; a reaction followed, and I began, most sophomorically, 
to become misanthropic and discontented. 

What kind chance has now thrown your friendship in my 
way I know not, neither do I care, so that I possess it. 

Gladly I seize upon it as betokening the time when my soul 
shall, 


“no more forlorn, 
Enjoy at last life’s greatest boon.” 


We have begun in the right way, moderately and reason- 
ably ; we have not sworn an “eternal friendship,” but we have, 
{ trust, formed one which shall, at least, last with life. 

After your gold I am almost ashamed to subjoin to this 
my dross, but let me hope that the altar may sanctify the 
gift, or at all events, that the lines may prove—though im- 
perfectly—how truly I am 

Your friend, 
W. R. H. 
21 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To F. E, A. 


When to the Monarch Winter’s throne, 
The blue-eyed Princess Spring succeeds, 
All Nature smiles her sway to own 
And loves to aid her kindly deeds. 


The prisoned streamlet feels the sun’s 
Enlivening influence o’er her shed, 

She bursts her snowy bonds and runs 
With blithesome smile the sea to wed. 


So when my life, a winter filled, 

And by the power its presence gave 

My heart’s warm streamlet had been chilled 
And ice-bound lay its once glad wave, 


A ray from out a friendly heart 
Which knew the need I long had felt, 
Most sweetly did its warmth impart 
And all my heart’s cold fetters melt. 
Nov. 10th ’56. 


To F,E.A. 


Feb. 11, 1858. . 

. . . Verily I think yours and mine is the best way to use 
science after all, namely to pick up what beauty we may in 
it and let the formula part slide. I am leading an exceedingly 
quiet life as I have been doing all the vacation, nor do I find 
it distasteful, indeed it seems to me I grow more and more 
averse to excitement, which ought not to be the case at my 
time of life when action and not calm should be the order of 
the days <<. ; 


To F. E. A. 


Lowell, Jan. 28th, ’59. 
My Dearest Frank: 

. .- I should value a good long evening with you now 
very much dear Frank, for there are things floating about 
in my mind which I think you might help me to settle into 

22 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


purposes. What Cooke said to us on that last Sunday eve- 
ning combined with other things which I have from time to 
time seen and heard, all lead me to the belief that we are ap- 
proaching an important point in the history of the American 
Church. ‘There seems to be a gravitating force at work which 
promises to draw the broken fragments of the Christian body 
more closely together than they ever have been. If there 
really does exist such a state of things as I suppose, if there 
is any prospect of so glorious an end being brought about, 
then surely the Church calls more loudly to all earnest young 
men than either of the other professions. You see that I am 
wavering. During the past year I have felt more and more 
drawn from Medicine and towards Divinity. Not the most 
trifling element in this attraction has been, I confess, the 
thought that then we two might be brought more closely to- 
gether than could otherwise be. Give this matter my loved 
friend as much thought as you can spare and write me your 
results. I have often told you that I think you know me 
better than any of my friends, and therefore what you say 
will have no trifling weight. ... 

I would this were a meeter return for your warmest of 
letters. Love me still, and tell me so even though I fail to 
speak to you all of what I feel. Write as often as you can 
and so will I and let us have no debt and credit. 

Most Affectionately, 
WILLIE. 


To F. E. A. 


Lowell, Feb. 8th, 1859. 
My Dearest Frank: 

. - « I wrote to you, as I did to one or two other friends, to 
get your views of my fitness for the ministry. In my letter 
to you I remember saying that I thought you knew me better 
than any one; your reply led me to think that I had been 
mistaken. 

Your first words, after your opening promise of impartial- 
ity, contained a hint that you thought Mr. Cooke had been 

23 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


bringing his persuasive powers to bear on me in the matter, 
and further on you suggest that he may have also prompted 
my first choice. Now, although I should be very far from 
feeling ashamed of having been influenced in these matters by 
the counsel of so wise a friend as Mr. C. yet in neither case 
does it happen that he has had a direct hand. My deter- 
mination to be a doctor had its rise, at least I can trace it no 
farther back, in a sermon preached in the Chapel something 
more than a year ago by Edward Hale. My desire to become 
a minister has been growing up out of my observation of the 
peculiar needs in which the Church just now stands. When 
I first became acquainted with Mr. Cooke I told him of my 
fixed intention to become a physician and he could hardly 
have been more surprised than he was when I informed him a 
fortnight ago that I had been reconsidering my resolve. To 
neither choice did he give the initiative. To both he has given 
the kindest and most welcome encouragement. 

After next touching slightly on my fitness and unfitness for 
the duties of pastor and preacher which were the points where 
I most wished your honest opinion and advice, you come to 
the question—and this was what hurt me, and gave me the 
feeling I spoke of—the question “Do I dare to forego wealth 
and luxury?’’ etc. 

Frank, when I made up my mind to become a physician, and 
very firmly I did make it up, I made up my mind at the same 
time to many more personal sacrifices than the position of 
a minister of Christ’s word will ever entail. I thought you 
knew this, I thought you knew what my ideal of the true 
physician was, most of all I thought you knew that I had clear 
enough views of God’s world, man’s business in it, to enable 
me to set these trifles down where they belong. 

And was this too much to think? Was it presumptuous? 
I hoped not, for to suppose otherwise was to imply that you 
had thought all that I had ever said of high or noble mere talk, 
good things to say to one’s friend on a lounge but poor to act 
on in a world. And this I was unwilling to imply. 

Lastly you warned me against coming to a decision. On 


24 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


this point we have always differed, perhaps because we take 
different views of what a decision is. I called it a decision 
when I determined to study medicine, and the decision helped 
me greatly. I did not regard that decision, nor shall I this 
other, if I make it, as a fetter indissoluble and fast; no, but 
rather as my present interpretation of God’s will, to be altered 
if I find, when the time for action comes, that that interpre- 
tation has become inadequate. I did not expect, dear Frank, 
when I wrote my last letter that this would have the con- 
troversial form which I find it has fallen into. But you 
yourself asked me to speak from my heart in this matter and 
I have done so as well as I know how. 


To His BrorHer 


Cambridge, Tuesday, March 15th, 1859. 
My Dear Frank: 

Yesterday afternoon the long expected, and much doubted 
Class Election came off and resulted in the complete triumph 
of our side. I will send you a paper with the lst of officers 
in full. The meeting opened at two and lasted till nine p. m., 
with two short recesses, and was exciting enough, especially 
to the candidates. I fortunately was not long in suspense, for 
as soon as the orator, after three ineffectual ballots had been 
chosen, I went in on my first ballot. This was contrary to 
the expectation of my friends who had anticipated a struggle. 

The elections were all made unanimous after the ballots and 
I hope that now it is over all ill feeling will speedily die out. 

One of the chief pleasures which the election has afforded 
me is this of dedicating, as I hereby do, my prospective poem, 
the first fruits of my college course, to you, without whose 
aid, so kindly given, that course would never have been tra- 
versed, 


To F. E. A. 


Machias, Me. July 31st, 1859. 
My Dear Frank: 
I wonder if you ever heard of this lumbering little town, 
or, I should say, little lumbering town, before. I opine not. 


25 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


However here we are, almost as far “down east” as it is pos- 
sible to go, and expecting to reach the very extremity of all 
to-morrow. We came hither yesterday from Mt. Desert, a 
small rockbound paradise where we have been sojourning dur- 
ing the past week feasting our eyes on scenery of the richest 
variety, and our palates on trout of the richest flavor, both 
of which we fairly earned by climbing for the first, and wad- 
ing for the second. Jim Fay who has spent several summers 
at the island has of course rehearsed its glories to you more 
than once, so that ecstatics from me would be superfluous. 
However I have them bottled up and they will be poured on 
some one sooner or later I am confident. 

One thing, however, Jim cannot have seen, for it is a sight 
not visible every day even at Mt. Desert, and that I must 
tell you about. On Tuesday night there was a thunder storm, 
and on Wednesday morning, although the clouds were still 
hanging about the sky, the general clearness of the atmosphere 
determined us to ascend “Green Mountain,” the highest point 
on the island, and where we were promised a fine view. 

After a climb of about an hour’s duration we reached the 
summit and a grander sight than greeted us there I never ex- 
pect to enjoy. On one side was the mainland dotted all over 
with the beautiful lakes with their fringes of pine, for which 
this region is celebrated, and the whole sprinkled with cloud- 
shadows from the remnants of the last night’s storm. 

But the peculiar sight I spoke of was on the other side, 
namely to the seaward. There where the sea should have been, 
lay stretched out, instead of it, a vast sheet of fog, its rough 
surface white in the sunshine as any snow-drift, and looking 
for all the world as if a troubled sea had been frozen, by an 
instantaneous stroke, into stillness. You can’t imagine how 
grand the great cloud glacier was, but what made the sight 
curious as well as grand was that you could see under, as well 
as over the immense sheet. The fog-bank had risen just high 
enough above the ocean for us to see a little way beneath its 
edge, and we could discern schooners sailing about upon the 
real sea, beneath the mimic one which lay between us, ap- 


26 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


parently in as clear an atmosphere as ourselves. We had 
fortunately arrived just in time to catch the full beauty of the 
sight, for presently, under the combined influences of sun and 
wind, little scraps of vapor began to disengage themselves 
from the general mass and gradually curling into shape sailed 
away to the horizon to adorn the skies of New Brunswick and 
Nova Scotia. In this way the whole mass was little by little 
dissipated and by eleven o’clock sea and land were equally 
clear. The Coast Survey which occupied the mountain last 
Summer left a signal pole standing there and up that I climbed 
to get the whole view at a sweep. It was magnificent. Sitting 
there I wished you by me, and though my locus, to wit, a peg 
driven into the pole, was somewhat limited I should have been 
glad to share it. . . . I have forgotten to tell you about our 
fishing and how we killed no less than five score trout to the 
delight of our female fellow boarders who ate them, and the cha- 
grin of our male ditto who tried to equal us but couldn’t. But 
no matter, you are no true Waltonian. You would only 
apply the albatross moral, and mentally hang a string of the 
dear little speckled things about my neck. . . . I think of you 
often among these strange places; what a pity there isn’t such 
a thing as a mental telegraph. It might be composed of heart 
strings instead of wires, a good idea! But good bye now. 
Parsons, as I have come to call him, desires to be remembered to 
you, as also do I to your family if you are with them. 
WILLIE. 


To His Sister 


Cambridge, Nov. 16th, 1859. 
Dear Mary : 

Parsons told me this morning that he had a long conversa- 
tion with Prof. F. D. H. last evening on his theological posi- 
tion, and also gave me the substance of it, so that I am able 
to answer your query, “Has Dr. Huntington declared him- 
self a Trinitarian?” a query, by the way, not put to me for 
the first time. 

27 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Dr. H. declares that he has n’t the remotest intention of 
connecting himself with any Trinitarian body as such, and 
that any statement to that effect is without authority from 
him. Furthermore, that whoever wishes to know his views 
on that particular subject need only wait until his forth- 
coming volume is published which will contain a definite state- 
ment of them. What a sad pity it is that the word “Trinity” 
was ever invented to become a shibboleth of party and a stum- 
bling block in the way of honest men. Probably not one person 
in twenty uses the word with a distinct understanding of what 
he means by it, and yet they have no hesitation in raising the 
ery of “heresy” against whoever confesses his inability to give 
a distinct statement of his belief about it. Such people would 
do well to remember that the word does not once occur in 
the Bible, but is of a later than Apostolical origin. I myself 
am a Trinitarian in my own sense of the word but I have no 
mind to be considered as assenting to the mass of irreconcili- 
able absurdities that pass under the name. 

I am fast getting to enjoy my studies better than at first. 
Bushnell has cleared my head to a tolerable extent, and I hope 
that Butler, whom I mean to attack next, will do more. I try 
to keep up two courses at once, one of Church history and 
another of theology. I have taken a private pupil in chemis- 
try, one Mifflin of Boston, with a view to getting together a 
few dollars to buy my dear little sister a wedding present; 
said little sister’s expectations will not be raised very high 
when I tell her that the pupil comes only twice a week. 

With love to all 
Aff’ly, 
WILLIE. 


Lo) FB. EA, 


Lowell, Feb. 24th, 1860. 
My Dear Frank: 
. . . Ned also informed me of a somewhat startling fact, 
to wit, that I was expected to deliver a chemical lecture before 


28 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


a free school, in which he is a teacher, on next Monday week. 
I promised Ned to give the lecture a long while ago, but I had 
forgotten that the appointed time was so near. To add to 
my perplexity I found that “Mr. Brown” had already delivered 
two lectures before the School and had stolen my thunder in 
advance by choosing the very subject I had allotted on, and 
the one subject moreover which offers the best chance for 
cheap and gaudy experiments calculated to take the eye of 
paupers and charity children. I am therefore driven, as it 
were, by Mr. Brown to the fag end of nature, and am obliged 
to put up with what I can find. The theme I have selected is 
“common air,” and by dint of foisting in one or two brilliant 
experiments which have n’t the most remote connection with 
the subject, I hope to make the lecture a passable one even 
for charity children; let us hope they will be charitable chil- 
dren. You would be amused by what I have written. It is in 
a style of puerility several notches below Stiickhardt, and you 
remember what he is. I mean to make the lecture an occasion 
of trying my hand at “preaching without notes,” a darling 
hope of mine you know, and I have accordingly prepared an 
abstract about three inches square from which I hope to be 
able to discourse. I was delighted the other day by having 
my mind set at rest on the subject of subscription to the 
Articles, for I have found on enquiry that our Church unlike 
the English does not require any such subscription; all that 
the candidate has to meet besides the examination for pro- 
ficiency is the declaration, “I do believe the Holy Scr. of the 
O. & N. T. to be the word of God and to contain all things 
necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly agree to conform to 
the doctrines and worship of the Prot. Epis. Church in the 
U. 8S.” A declaration which I should be willing to sign to- 
day. It is an unspeakable satisfaction to me to have my mind 
thus settled, for now I feel that I can go straight ahead and 
work to some purpose in an organization which I love, both 
from historical and home associations. I look forward with 
hope to our Gk. readings next term, although “the Fathers” 
are such an uncommonly big cake that I fear the slice we ex- 


29 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


tract will be of imperceptible thickness. Believe me, dear 
Frank, ever affectionately yours 


W. R. H. 
To F. E. A, 


S. Albans, July 26th, 60. 
My Dear Frank: 

I wish you were with us to enjoy the beautiful surroundings 
of this charming Vermont town. .. . 

And how do you find Cambridge in loneliness? Better than 
you feared I hope. . . . You must find it very very solitary 
sometimes. But after all, Frank, comfort, as I confessed to 
you the other night, is not the best school for our Lord’s 
ministry. I am too comfortable to feel much spiritual 
strength, and although I know the comfort to be necessary 
for my bodily health at present, and accordingly for my future 
usefulness, I yet cannot help regretting the loss it brings with 
it. The temptation is so strong to luxuriate and “laze”? amid 
the natural beauties and pleasant society of this quiet little 
place, that I am often shocked by the weakness of my aspira- 
tion, and the darkness of my spiritual eye. Do you have such 
seasons? And, if you do, what do you think of them? Are 
they what everyone must expect in the intervals between God’s 
visits, or ought they to be shaken off with violence, and if the 
latter, how? JI am reading Kingsley’s “Saint’s Tragedy” 
in hopes that its strong enthusiasm may rouse a corresponding 
fervor in me. Kingsley’s devotional poetry (and by this I 
don’t mean what is usually intended in the phrase, but rather 
the poetry of self-sacrifice, the true synonym of “devotion’’) 
is to me wonderfully strong... . 

Very affectionately, 
WILLIE. 
To F. E. A. 


Hyde Park, Vt. Sept. 12th, 1860. 

My Dear Frank: | 
. . . I staid, however, over Monday, and went on that day 

to visit a camp-meeting a little way out of town, the first one 


30 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


I ever attended. I was quite impressed with what I saw and 
very glad I went. It is well for any one, especially a minister, 
to make himself familiar with the different forms of religious 
development; and certainly a more peculiar form than camp- 
meeting Methodism it would be hard to find. It was painful 
to see how sadly the signs of spiritual and bodily excitement 
were confounded, but how any one can find it in his heart 
to laugh at manifestations which, though grotesque and ex- 
travagant, are so evidently begotten of sincere feeling I can- 
not conceive. I listened a long while to their narrations of 
“experience,” and now and then a speaker rose to real elo- 
quence. One woman talked exactly like Thomas-a-Kempis, 
quite as strongly, quite as feelingly; and I was much struck 
by hearing one old woman describe a “vision of sin” which she 
had that morning had for the first time, in words which fitted 
exactly an “experience” of my own. Indeed the women seemed 
to me to feel what they said far more than the men. The latter 
talked in a matter of fact way, and rattled off the cant phrases 
parrot-like, but the women evidently all spoke de profundis, 
and because they felt there was that in them they must not keep 
back. The sudden revulsions of feeling were wonderful. One 
woman who had just been speaking with the tears running 
down her cheeks, broke out into “unextinguishable laughter,” 
hysterical of course, as soon as they struck up one of their 
lively tunes. Four or five years ago what I saw and heard 
in that grove would have disgusted me beyond measure, and 
even now I am sadly puzzled when I ask myself the question, 
“Can God be pleased by extravagancies like these, or is it that 
all our forms of worship, those which seem to us purest and 
loftiest, are in his sight just as inadequate, just as coarse?” 
What wonder that men of education and refinement shudder 
so at the name of evangelical religion when they judge of it 
from manifestations like these? The singing alone was un- 
exceptionable; it was very sweet, owing I suppose to the pre- 
ponderance of female voices. There were pretty faces among 
the women too, though for the most part they had that dis- 
traught wild look characteristic of fanaticism, .. . 


31 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To F. E. A. 


Lowell, Sept. 21st, 1860. 
My Dear Frank: 

» « . Since I came home I have been at work on Hamilton 
and Neander. I have read a dozen lectures in the former and 
am charmed with the clearness and finish of his style. My 
idealism has n’t yet been shocked, though I suppose it will be 
before I get much further. By the way can I ever persuade 
you that I am not an idealist in the proper sense of that 
term but that I believe in the existence of matter just as much 
as you or Sir Wm.? 

I received a letter from Prof. Huntington the other day 
which gave me great joy, inasmuch as it quieted some misgiv- 
ings I had entertained in regard to the high church tendencies 
alleged against him. I wish I were at liberty to publish the 
letter, it is so strong and positive and at the same time so 
catholic. F. D. H. is a noble man and I shall always love 
him. I will come down on Monday if I possibly can and 
shall look for you at Divinity Hall. 


To F. E. A. 


Cambridge, October 15th, 1860. 
My Dear Frank: 

. . . I continue to enjoy my horse hugely; my health has 
improved visibly under his influence, and I am better than 
I have been for two or three years. I cannot say that I find 
solitary study very exciting or remunerative. I long for 
some one to sympathise with and to talk with on the subjects 
nearest my heart. There is an orthodox divinity student 
teaching in the Lowell High School and with him I hold occa- 
sionally some converse, but, although we agree admirably on 
points of doctrine, we were not cut out for bosom friends, and I 
know well enough that our friendship will not get beyond a cer- 
tain point. He is, however, very intelligent, having been first 
scholar in the Class of ?59 at Dartmouth, and since he owns 
a horse as well as myself, and uses him for the same purpose, 
I doubt not we shall have very many pleasant talks together. 

32 





sy ; a] ie fo we USels , > le 

mes ‘se 7 2 : a Ale ° 7 | 
ase G. © a Ys - A i - ts : : 
q Py al way f. 2 ; : 
. » 


eee e 
“th - 

re 
) 
ge 


_ Ld ee : bs 
\ oe te. > -g ; 
r : : ait] ; 
of : ’ 
pa =f 
. j 
S 4 - ' » ‘ 
“ ‘ “ts 
y 4 F 
- 
- . 
; A + : Pe * ie 
i * my 
- yt \ ee 
; = I 1 
‘ : ' : in? ‘Lire 
" = ; pe Oey 
\ @ ” ; > 
>. pigs tt? ha 
Os) Sate i as PRN Gs 14 7 
Ps 2 z ; i bs a } ee i 4 
7 o ‘ ' ‘ er 
i Pay Rn TE 1 | age 
cate Pe ra 2 Some ores | 
rt . refactt 
aThYy ; ie re 1) Ad 
ns ote TS ric ae Pl aa 
+e el MV) eat ae r 
< ic/t ] b ose a yy , a0 ‘ . 
4 » eo) re it a, : = 
hh i -* AAA. aL r Hy8 - 
“he ORS ee Sot ae Pts 








Ty cal mM Uh Se for 
aE Da Ee oe, Oeil Hae al 
epee erre. uk Mu bac ee 4 
: i 4 : 


; Te api 5 ’ - « ys ; tT 7. 
t On ue ok! if i Nag ae 
mt hi r hs a0 + ; aa brea 
5 Pa : i Ae taaee , fear’ 4" oor ao 
tae tok 'L ’ a A ' ~~ ; 
“ibe iti WH re o Lf fran ‘ Yd 4 ; ; 
2 »! 14 ¥ 4 a ae r\ . sto ) “~ 
7 ‘< ’ {is ? moe a ae aie a eee he < 
: 7 wry fal ‘e5 if v ie =. | ‘ 
Nek Ota APL” WM ji oS tk ae yh ee 


: ‘ f a, im ty) : wees vr ADA pahiy ,eiteaes 
- We ier My ty Fy fhe Aud?) id “ at” a ee 
“4 aad on; au a. 2 





ue he 


ha hy 
a | Eee, 
as ie ui 
7 a fs. pe 7 
ie AAD ee sis Das, 





= recs 


U 








HUNTINGTON IN COLLEGE DAY 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


Reading some of your old letters the other afternoon I got 
quite Aprilish over them and longed for a good hour with 
you. That I suppose, however, is a pleasure now long de- 
ferred, but I do not think we shall love one another the less 
for separation. Frank, you have all my respect; if you have 
not all my love it is not because I would not give it you if I 
could do so by speaking the word, but because my nature is 
not so high as yours and cannot yet love as deeply as by and 
by it may. Have faith in my purposes and pray for me that 
I may reach my own ideal. 

Very affectionately, 
WILuIE. 


To F. E. A. 


Lowell, Oct. 29th, 1860. 
My Dear Frank: 

- - . It saddened me to hear you speak so despondently of 
our friendship, and I wish you would take the enclosed lines 
as Iy commentary on your words. You mistake if you think 
I am forming new friendships. I have only the old ones and 
those somewhat shattered. We have never understood one 
another—that has been the cause of our failure. We are 
so very, very different in our temperaments, and have such 
diverse ways of loving. In that world where we “shall know 
even as we are known,” our friendship may find its consum- 
mation. I hope so. 

You will think me very vacillating when I tell you that I 
have formed a new plan for the winter, but since my changes 
have been the result of circumstances and not my own lack of 
steadfastness, there is nothing to be ashamed of in them. 
When I last wrote you I was making a visit in Cambridge. 
While there I had an interview with Dr. Huntington who 
offered to take me into his study and give me a large share of 
his parochial work, i.e. the entire charge of a mission-school 
which he intends establishing in the 9th ward. Besides this, 
I am to be Supt. of his regular Church S. S. and perhaps assist 
him in reading the service, which he finds too much for him 


33 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


while he preaches three times a Sunday. The offer seemed 
to me such a good one that I did not feel that it would be 
right to refuse it, and shall accordingly enter upon my new 
duties next Thursday. In order to give my Aunt as much of 
my company as possible, I mean to purchase a season-ticket 
on the R. R. and go up and down every day. ‘This will give 
me all my evenings at home, and will moreover insure regularity 
of habits, inasmuch as I shall be obliged to get up at six o’clock 
throughout the winter... . 

I have just finished “Hamilton’s Metaphysics,” and have 
procured the recently published “Logic” in hopes to get equal 
enjoyment from it. JI remember your telling me that you had 
a criticism on his theory of “the conditioned.” Is it com- 
pressible into the limits of a letter? I should so like to see 
it. His application of the law to the causal judgment seems 
to me very weak and unsatisfactory. After an elaborate 
criticism and exposure of the fallacy of Brown’s theory he 
seems to me to fall himself into just Brown’s error, i.e. leav- 
ing out of view the idea of power which certainly lies at the 
bottom of the causal judgment. The true statement of the 
genesis of our conviction that no event can happen without a 
cause, seems to be that it is an intuition first developed by sub- 
jective experience in the action of our own wills. Can you tell 
me where I can find in English Kant’s demonstration of the sub- 
jectivity of our idea of space? Iam curious to seeit.... 

WILLIE. 


“Still it is with a sigh I pass 
away from your horizon.” 


True there are stars which for a season shine, 
Then dip below the verge and are forgot. 

Such fate, proud Sirius, shining one, is thine, 
Brief thy dominion tyrannous and hot. 

But those there are which tireless and for aye 
Circle forever round the northern pole, 

Let passing cloudlets dim them as they may. 

No power can quench, save His for whom they roll. 


34 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


Star of my boyhood; earliest one that rose 

To light the dusky fields wherein I stray ; 

As from the first, so ever to the close 

Thy constant lustre shall illume my way. 
Though others shine, thou shinest not the less, 
A joy when all is calm, a beacon in distress. 


On Ky eo 


Cambridge, Nov. 12th, °60. 
My Dear Frank: 

- + . Almost all last week, I was occupied in going about 
the 9th Ward picking up children for the S. School which 
opened yesterday. I had some amusing experiences. My 
method was to take the streets in order, inquiring at every 
house respectable or not. Wherever they seemed kindly dis- 
posed I left one of our cards, and, as often as I could get an 
opportunity, chatted with the children themselves. In this 
way I got the promise of between fifty and sixty children 
mostly ranging between the ages of six and fourteen. But 
Emmanuel Mission was fated to be cradled in the storm. Yes- 
terday, to our great disappointment, rose upon us in a violent 
tempest and we scarcely hoped to see more than half a dozen 
children in their places. To our surprise, however, no less than 
thirty-five turned out, which was about as large a number as 
we could manage the first time. They behaved with wonderful 
propriety, considering who and whence they were, and I hope 
we shall succeed in making a model S. S. of it. The teachers 
are a fine set of earnest young women who seem determined 
to do their best, and the married ladies of the parish have 
organized an effective clothing department which will prove of 
great aid to us in our efforts to improve the district, cleanli- 
ness being a large part of godliness. | 

TI enclose one of the cards which we have distributed through 
the Ward. One of the Grammar School teachers got hold of 
one of them and was kind enough to read it aloud in his school 
and urge attendance on his scholars. .. . 

Ever affectionately yours, WILLIE. 


35 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


FREE 
SUNDAY-SCHOOL MISSION 


of Emmanuel Church, 
In the Ninth Ward. 


This School is open to all Children and Young People. All 
are heartily invited to come. Kind and faithful Teachers of 
both sexes will welcome them, and teach them in the Holy Scrip- 
tures and in singing Hymns, with other Exercises. 

The Hall is on the south side of Church Street, next to the 
Railroad Buildings, near Tennyson Street, up Stairs. 

The School begins at half-past one o’clock every Sunday. 
The Scholars are specially asked to be punctual. 

Further information may be had of Rev. Dr. Frederick D. 
Huntington, 98, Boylston Street. 


To wii kut TAS 


. Dec. 10th, ’60. 
My Dear Franx: 

. . . I continue to enjoy my work in Boston exceedingly. 
Yesterday we had an accession to our school of twenty new 
scholars, making an aggregate of sixty-three got together 
within a month. This is so encouraging that we propose to 
start a new mission the Ist of January. Some of the poor 
little fellows have begun to suffer for righteousness’ sake al- 
ready, for the Roman Catholics have declared war against us, 
and their big boys have begun to persecute our little ones. 
I made them a little speech yesterday exhorting them to cour 
age, and they all promised to go straight ahead doing what 
they thought right through thick and thin. I want, if pos- 
sible, to get up an esprit de corps among them which shall 
make them feel like little crusaders against the heathenism 
which fills their portion of the city. 

What sad times we have fallen upon politically, have we 
not? Of course you saw the newspaper account of the at- 
tempted abolition meeting in Tremont Temple. Phillips and 
his compeers were fairly outwitted. I hear that another meet- 

36 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


ing is threatened, in which case I very much fear there will 
be blood-spilling in the Boston streets. God seems to be work- 
ing out the slavery problem in his own way, and to be bringing 
down upon both parties the reward of their political sins. 
How sad it is that there is not one man at Washington to 
whom the whole country can look with confidence and re- 
spect. ... 
Always your 
WILLIE. 


To-F. KE. A. 


Cambridge, Dec. 25th, 1860. 
My Dear Frank: 

A merry Xmas to you and your household! My Monday 
yesterday was so crowded with work that I was unable to put 
pen to paper, but I trust my letter will reach you just as 
early if I put it in this morning. I could wish you, or any- 
body, no pleasanter sight than to have seen our S. S. festival 
last evening. Without exception it was the most delightful 
scene I ever witnessed. All day long we—i. e. the ladies who 
had taken the thing in hand and myself—were busy decorating 
the room and setting up the Xmas tree. Wreaths, crosses 
and appropriate inscriptions were liberally distributed over 
the walls and about the pictures. But the crowning glory was 
the tree. This, besides the brightly dressed dolls and toys, 
was beautifully lighted with little cup-shaped lanterns of 
colored glass and vitreous icicles made for the purpose. 
About dusk, the children, numbering now about eighty-five, 
were admitted, a green curtain having been previously hung 
up to hide the splendors of the tree. A short religious service 
was held first of which the principal feature was the singing 
by the children of “While Shepherds Watched,” and “Bright- 
est and Best of the Sons of the Morning” which they vocif- 
erated with a will. Then the curtain was drawn and, as I 
said before, I could wish nobody anything pleasanter than to 
have seen those children’s faces at that moment. I saw one 
little fellow who sat alone by himself laughing, as if he would 


37 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


split, from pure delight. Contributions had been so liberal 
that we were able to give every boy either a sled or a pair of 
skates together with some warm article of clothing, a bag of 
sugar-plums and a package of cake. Every girl was given a 
doll or its equivalent and the same accompaniments as the 
boys. Every child therefore received four articles and went 


home with his hands as full as his heart... . 
Wiue R. H. 


To F, E. A. 


Jan. 21, 1861. 
Quincy Street, 
Cambridge. 
My Dear Frank: 

... I agree with you that “the infallibility of the Bible 
cannot be maintained as once it was.” My opinions on these 
subjects have not materially changed since the time when we 
used to talk them over together, although you seem to enter- 
tain a vague dread that I am lapsing into all the horrors of 
extreme Calvinism. But what I do hold is this, that the in- 
fallibility of the Bible must be maintained on some ground or 
“Else Earth is darkness at the core And dust and ashes all that 
is.’ That ground I take to be this, that the Bible being a 
book which has to do with both God and man, there is in it a 
mixture of the fallible and the infallible. But these two are 
so intimately united that no critical dissecting knife can pass 
between without vital injury to both. I hold it therefore to 
be the part of an honest and earnest (these being the adjec- 
tives which the neologists arrogate exclusively to themselves) 
of an honest and earnest Xian to strive to fix the founda- — 
tions of faith in the book as deep as possible, and not to go 
hither and thither ferretting out little discrepancies and 
errors. <i.) 

I start in my theology from X as the centre. I recognise 
in him “God manifest in the flesh.” I gather from his teach- 
ings, the very words of his own mouth, that he believed the O. 

38 | 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


T. to be in an especial sense the word of God, that the whole 
of it had a nearer or more remote bearing on himself, that the 
histories were the histories of a people divinely led in a sense 
different from that of ordinary providence, that its psalms 
and prophecies bore upon him and the Church he was to estab- 
lish upon earth, and finding that he, my Lord & Master, 
infinitely above me in spiritual knowledge and in familiarity 
with “the nature of the human soul,” believed all this, I believe 
it too and take pleasure in verifying my belief in all the ways I 
can. Depend upon it, Frank, after you have had more ex- 
perience of the practical work of a minister, you will find how 
much more important is the Bible than any speculative view of 
its origin & nature. Only be called, as I was the other day 
to a poor dying man sunk in guilt and longing, longing for a 
redemption, and your warm heart would never suffer you to say 
when he asked you whether he might trust the Bible, “Yes, if 
you know how to take it ideologically, and can distinguish 
between what is spurious and authentic.” ... 

How much better a good fireside talk on such a subject 
than an epistolary discussion. Alas, when will that be? 
When shall we have bodily telegraphs? 

Very affectionately, 
Wire R. H. 


To F. KE. A. 


» Feb. 4th, 61. 
Quincy Street, 
Cambridge. 

My Dear Frank: 

. . . Do you remember about a year ago this time attending 
a certain chemical lecture at an evening school room? I am 
going to give another there tonight, and wish I were to have 
the honor of your presence. My subject tonight will be 
Water, and if I can induce those of the unwashed who may be 
present to set a higher value on the article & to make a 
freer use of it I shall be abundantly repaid... , 

39 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


We are getting on finely at our Mission School. A week 
ago I started a Missionary Society among the boys, by the 
name of “Soldiers of the Cross.” The organization was a 
mere pretext for getting them to observe a set of rules, and 
for arousing an esprit de corps among them. They took hold 
of it with great enthusiasm and no less than twenty-four of 
the older boys joined. The system is based entirely on the 
principle of honor & is of course an experiment. There are 
eight rules, and everybody who at the end of the week can de- 
clare on his honor that he has broken no one of them has a right 
to receive a red card from his Captain (who is an officer of their 
own choice). Those who have broken one rule receive a blue 
card, those who have broken two a white one, and those who 
have broken more than two no card at all. Of course if they 
have no sense of honor and are willing deliberately to break 
the first rule, i.e. “No Soldier shall tell a lie,” why then 
the whole thing will be a failure, but I was very much 
pleased yesterday, at the first distribution of cards, to notice 
that only two or three claimed red cards, most of them asking 
for blue or white ones. One of the rules reads, “No Soldier 
shall drink any kind of intoxicating drink.” A little fellow 
came up to me after S.S. with a beseeching look, to ask, “Mr. 
Huntington, may I drink spruce beer? ... 

WILLIE. 


To F. E. A. 


Feb. 18th, 1861. 
Quincy Street, 
Cambridge. 
My Dear Frank: 

. . . [think a man has made a great step when he has found 
that there are some problems in the Universe which are in- 
soluble to human minds, problems which, so to speak, contain 
a transcendent factor. Now the question as to the exact 
nature of scripture inspiration I take to be just one of these. 
Natural and supernatural, human and divine are so interlaced 


40 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


and woven together in the Bible that no critical sagacity can 
sever them without destroying the integrity of both. I do not, 
like yourself, regard this question as one to be settled by this 
generation or by any other unless we have another revelation. 
Do not, I beg of you, Frank, fall into that plausible fallacy— 
19th centuryism. Do not believe that because we have learned 
to turn the forces of nature to better account than our an- 
cestors, that because we have invented the steam engine and the 
telegraph and I know not what, that therefore we are wiser 
necessarily than all who have lived before in the eternal ques- 
tions which touch the mind and soul. Eighteen centuries of 
Xian thought & experience are certainly worth something. 
Seventy times seven Essayists will not upset the great truths 
which have changed heathendom to Xiandom. .. . Take 
my case for instance; you know me pretty well. God knows 
I have little enough to care for beside the truth. In ranging 
myself with the “so called evangelical’’ believers I have sacri- 
ficed the mental sympathy of most of my young-men friends. 
Surely you do not attribute to me any desire to block the prog- 
ress of God’s truth among men. The whole difference in the 
bent of our minds is well expressed by you when you say that 
you prefer “bran of your own grinding to other men’s flour.” 
I do not. I greatly prefer other men’s flour to my own bran. 
It is the material I care for, not the mill in which it is 
made. It seems to me that your system, which might be em- 
bodied in the maxim “Every man his own Pope” would lead 
logically, as it has led historically, to the worst antinomianism. 
I can conceive of no system of dogmatism harder to bear than 
the arrogant self assertion which the theory of free thought 
consistently carried out would introduce. For heaven’s sake, 
is there no distinction between free thought and free thinking, 
between liberty and license, between “free speech” and free- 
dom to abuse your neighbors? I think if you were living in 
Boston now you would confess with Wordsworth in his Ode, 
“Me doth this too much freedom tire.” ... 
Always yours, 
WILLIE. 


41 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To F. E, A. 


March 4th, ’61, 
Quincy Street, 
: Cambridge. 
My Dear Frank: | 
Your letter was marked by manliness of tone and candor of 
expression, two qualities you will never find me slow to recog- 
nize, or to applaud. Doubtless I am too impetuous in my 
style of argument where I feel deeply interested in the subject 
involved, but I assure you you over-state the case when you 
speak of “ingenious perversion” as one of the characteristics 
of my letter writing. As to your sentence about the wheat 
and the bran I am inclined to think that nine persons out of 
ten would have seen in it rather an overweening self-confidence. 
As you explain it it becomes a truism. As to your other sen- 
tence in which you say that you suppose I scarcely accord you 
the name of Xian, I of course suppose you to be speaking 
rhetorically. Nothing could be further from my heart than 
any desire to read, or write, a dearly loved friend out of the 
pale. My definition of a Xian is a simple one and broad, “A 
man who acknowledges the Jesus X of the N. Testament to be 
his Savior and his Lord to whom all his fealty, as a member of 
the human race, is due.”” X as the Vine, of which we men are, 
or should be, the branches is the central point about which my 
religious beliefs group. But apart from my definition of a 
Xian, which is fundamental and essential, I hold very many 
opinions, liable to change, as to the best way of presenting 
the truth as it is in Jesus, and of organizing the visible church 
which X evidently meant to establish upon earth. Among 
these are the questions as to the kind of bible-inspiration, the © 
claims of episcopacy, etc., etc. If I speak strongly in regard 
to certain tendencies, it is because I think I see—not from my 
own prophetic power, but from history—whither those ten- 
dencies inevitably lead. A line of Xian thought which has 
always been found to run out into religious idleness and a 


42 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


religion of negations, I argue, not with certitude to be sure, 
but with all the force that belongs to inductive logic, always 
will so run out. When I read the lives of such men as F’, New- 
man and poor Sterling, and see how with them like beginnings 
led to like endings, I cannot but be fearful for similar begin- 
nings everywhere. 

One explanation of our difference of view is this. Your posi- 
tion and surroundings lead you naturally to take a speculative 
view of religion; with you the highest ambition now is to 
separate the true from the false. A noble work; God help 
you in it. My position and surroundings lead me naturally 
to take a practical view of religion (i.e., understand me—to 
desire to find out the best mode of making religion a working 
power among the men and women of our Godless cities). With 
me the highest ambition now is to separate the right from the 
wrong. You may say that my distinction between the true 
and the right is a fallacious one when applied to religion. I 
do not think so. The true and the right are joined, I know, 
like the heat and the light in the candle flame, but they are 
different just as heat and light are different. Is there not a 
truth in this statement of our difference? I do not say that I 
deem one mode more important than the other. I am de- 
lighted to hear such pleasant things about your school pros- 
pects. I knew you would succeed. . ... 

What a dampish day Abe has had for his inauguration. I 
trust it is not a harbinger of the administration. At any rate 
let this 4th of March inaugurate an era of larger charity and 
a more real generosity in our correspondence. I send with 
this a pretty little copy of Auschylus, almost my first literary 
earning. I got it for writing a book-notice of the series. It 
is more in your line than mine. Let it serve as a remembrancer 
of our old Greek readings. 

Always yours, 
Wie. 


P. S. I am going to begin Hebrew with a German this 
Spring. I wish we could study it together. 
43 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To F. E. A. 


Lowell, Mar. 18th, ’61. 
Dear Frank: 

. . - You complain that my definition of a Xian is “not 
sufficiently precise.” I made it large and roomy as I could in 
the hope that you would be content to stay init. Your defi- 
nition I cannot accept simply because to me it emasculates the 
word of all its meaning. As you understand the word I know 
not how Christian is any higher epithet than Socratian, save 
that X was a shade or two holier in heart and clearer in head 
than the Greek. 

Oh, Frank, how can you read that blessed Gospel of St. 
John and still see in its subject only the promulgator of a 
new system of morality? Have you ever read through, nay 
more, studied, as I know you must have, that mighty parable 
of the Vine and the Branches, which is the foundation of Xen- 
dom itself, and yet seen in its author only the “teacher sent 
from God” whom the hesitating Nicodemus recognized? 

Either see in the author of that parable the “Lord of Life,” 
or else the craziest and most impudent fanatic that ever spoke. 
Do not suspect me, I know you will not, of any poor intellec- 
tual vanity when I say that I think I have got at a truth in 
this matter of the relation of Christ to men which you have 
not reached yet. I claim no merit in having grasped that 
truth, I was led to it I can scarcely tell you how; still, having 
taken hold of it, it has become to me the very centre and ker- 
nel of our religion. That truth is this—the essential Divinity 
of X. It is with Him we have to deal. To Him is given all 
power in heaven and earth. He is the saviour of this sinning 
world, and shall yet be the leader of the redeemed race of men. 

Call this Methodistical cant or Calvinistical dogmatism 
if you will; two years ago, perhaps, I should have called it so 
myself, but at the time of Mother’s death I woke up to the 
need of a Saviour and a Lord such as I had never felt before. 
Then I began to find a meaning in words of the N. T. which had 
always been dark to me before. Those who looked on said, 
“He has gone over to Orthodoxy with Prof. Huntington.” 

4A 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


Could they have looked in instead of on, they might have said, 
‘““Hfe seems to feel a hand he has been groping for in darkness 
until now.” What you would call the “mystical offices of KX” 
make all his preciousness to me. I probably shall never use 
the popular language in which it is customary to speak of 
those offices, simply because it has been made to subserve the 
purposes of cant so often that it is extremely distasteful to me; 
but when I lose the truths which underlie that language, offen- 
sive as it is, then shall Comte be my prophet and universal 
skepticism my creed. It makes me sad to think of you, with 
your warm heart and boundless possibilities of love, hastily 
rejecting beliefs which have fed the world’s life for eighteen 
hundred years. Do stop and think before you re-state your 
position. “If therefore any belief is necessary to your idea 
of a Xian, I do not meet it.” “Any belief”? Why, Frank, 
belief, belief in a person, faith, not in the sense of adherence to 
certain statements, but thus, fides-fiducia, that is the very 
foundation stone of the Church of Christ. Beware of sub- 
limating your belief to a mere intellectual abstraction. I tell 
you frankly I think an overweening confidence in the products 
of your own speculative thought is your great danger. It is the 
childlike virtues that inherit the beatitudes. ... 

Do I seem to have been preaching you a gratuitous sermon? 
Pardon me; it is only my intense desire, that you, who, if you 
become a Xian minister, must influence many, many minds, 
may be yourself guided into all the truth, that makes me speak. 
Xian or no Xian I shall always be your friend, and you I 
trust will never fail the friend you knew as 

WILLIE. 


To F. E. A. 


Boston, Monday, May 13, 1861. 
My Dear Franx: 

. . . The aspect of political affairs grows every day more 
sad to me; the prospect of an extended war is terrible. So 
long as brass buttons and gold lace are all we see of military 
life well and good, but there are aspects of that life revolting 

A5 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


enough, as I had occasion to see last night. A little in the 
rear of my 8S. S. room on Church St. there is a large freight 
depot which has been given up to the 14th reg. of volunteers 
for barracks. All through the day the street had been in 
confusion, and indeed one man had been almost killed in a 
fight. When the time for my evening service came there were 
very few in attendance, and it ocurred to me that it might 
be a good thing to get a number of the soldiers to come in 
and participate. With that view I went to the barracks and 
asking to see a captain was allowed by a sentinel to go in. 
Such a sight I never before saw. In its way it was impres- 
sive. ‘The immense room was luridly lighted with tallow 
candles fastened to the post, while over the floor were lying 
on dirty pillows, not beds, hundreds of men, most of them ap- 
parently in a drunken sleep. One fellow I saw doubled up in a 
bushel basket & rolling about promiscuously. The muskets lay 
in great circles, with the bayonets inward and their burnished 
barrels gleaming in the candle light. I soon satisfied myself 
that there was little material for worship there, and returned 
to my small congregation. I am glad to see by this morn- 
ing’s paper that the men are to be removed to Long Island to- 
morrow. ‘The sooner such creatures are under martial law 
the better for themselves and others. I shall not soon forget 
the unearthly appearance & horrid stench of that “warrior’s 
home.” With all my heart I detest war and its every con- 
comitant save the spirit of loyalty & self-sacrifice which it 
calls out. That commands respect & that alone. I would 
stand up this minute and be shot (I say it in earnest) if by 
so doing I could give my country peace; but as for killing an- 
other for any object, I hesitate. It seems to me I could only 
do it in defence of those I loved best. . . . 

- - . About six weeks ago I passed my examination for 
Deacon’s Orders with a view to immediate ordination. The 
examination in itself was perfectly satisfactory, I believe, 
but upon propounding my view of the Articles I was 
told that upon that view I could not be accepted. The 
examination broke up & I was set adrift. I then gave 


46 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


the subject of the Articles, their interpretation & binding 
force, a fuller consideration than I had before done, which 
resulted in a modification of my previous view. This mature 
view I communicated by letter to the Bp. but was told that it 
was still unsatisfactory, but that I might have another ex- 
amination in the Fall. Meantime I have ascertained that my 
view of the Articles is the one generally accepted by the clergy 
of the Church, and that if the Bp. refuses to accede to it he 
can be overruled. You are probably surprised that I should 
have put up with all this. I could scarcely have believed it 
of myself, but my aim throughout has, I trust, been the honor 
& service of my Master rather than the gratification of per- 
sonal pride. I feel thoroughly convinced that I can serve 
the cause of X better in the Episcopal Church than elsewhere, 
and, strange & incomprehensible as it may seem to you, with 
more real liberty of thought & action than elsewhere; & con- 
sequently I am willing to make all sacrifices consistent with 
honor & integrity to enter it. I have told you this in con- 
fidence of course and to assure you, what you seem to doubt, 
that my inclinations do not override my judgment. In the 
first place, then, neither the Eng. Ch. nor the Epis. Ch. admits 
holding “a creed which it has outgrown.” We think, as 
Kingsley has somewhere expressed it, that the old creeds and 
not the new ones are to regenerate the life of the world. We 
do not believe that it was left for this self-conceited century 
to pull down the stately fabric of faith reared by the eighteen 
which had preceded it, and to heap up a mass of negations in 
its place. Some persons can subsist on negations, but neither 
you nor I have hearts to be satisfied by that kind of diet... . 

Great liberality is cheerfully allowed but not practical 
negation, For instance take the doctrine of the Atonement, 
the keystone of the Xian arch, there may be many views as to 
how & in what way the work was wrought, but I submit that 
this is a very different thing from denying that there is any 
atonement at all. A year ago Sumner, Breckenridge & 
Douglas all stood upon the floor of the U. S. Senate, in virtue 
of having sworn to uphold the Constitution, and no one doubted 


AT 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


their right to stand there though every one knew that their 
views of what the Constitution meant differed radically. Do 
you think that the public would have quietly tolerated the 
presence on that floor of a man who had pronounced the Con- 
stitution “a compact with Hell” even though he professed him- 
self willing to take the oath of allegiance? They might have 
tolerated it, as the Eng. Ch. wisely tolerates the Essayists, but 
I insist that they would not quietly have tolerated it. And 
so although the Church allows large liberty in construing her 
doctrine yet she insists on some construction. . . 

But you will say, “What is to be the criterion in the matter 
of interpretation?” I answer that the criterion is to be what 
it is in all ethical as well as political questions, common sense. 
And who is to be the Judge? I answer the constituted 
authorities of examination. When I am examined next time 
I shall submit my interpretation of those Articles & other 
points upon which I feel that I may possibly be at variance 
with the Church at large to the Bp. & Committee. If that in- 
terpretation is satisfactory to the constituted authorities well 
& good; if unsatisfactory I must go elsewhere, that is all. 
After a man is once in the Church he must be guided by his 
own conscience as to any new questions which may come up. 
One point more ought to be stated. Our Episcopal Church al- 
lows more latitude than the Eng. Church in this way. An Eng- 
lish Clergyman must sign the Articles seriatim, but an American 
only signs a statement that he will adhere to doctrine of 
this Church as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer taken 
as a whole. Now the Prayer Book was the product of many 
hands & different ages and the consequence is that one part 
limits another, so that if any clause of the Articles seems to 
me at variance with any other part of the book, I am at 
liberty to make one modify the other, applying the Biblical 
canon, universally accepted I believe, that every sentence 1s 
to be judged by the bearing of every other. At best we get 
at all truth in this world by cross-lights only, & what holds 
good on this point in science & philosophy holds good in the- 
ology as well. I trust I have made myself understood. I 


438 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


have been obliged to write in haste which must account for the 
blots, erasures, etc. ... 
Ever yours, 
WILLIE. 


To F. E. A. 


Boston, June 25th, 1861. 
Dear Frank: 

Yesterday I was off all day on a pilgrimage to the graves 
of my paternal ancestors in company with my father and 
uncle. The place was Topsfield, an old town in Essex County. 
It was pleasant to run over the fields where my father played 
as a boy and to rummage the ancient parsonage in which my 
grandfather indited Calvinistic discourses sixty years ago. 
The beams run across the ceilings as in old Mass. Hall and 
the quaint little cupboards are tucked away in the corners 
in a manner which makes one wish he had had the exploring of 
them as a five-year-old. ... 

Truly yours, 
. Wixi R. H. 


To F. E, A. 


Lowell, Aug. 26th, 1861. 
My Dear Franx: 

. . . I have been much interested, the past week, in read- 
ing quite a remarkable book entitled “Debt & Grace, or the 
Doctrine of a Future Life.” The author is one C. F. Hudson, 
whom you may remember as a gaunt, raw-boned looking man, 
frequently to be seen crossing the Delta, wrapt in a checked 
black and white shawl, in our College days. But C. F. Hudson 
is a most eminent exemplar of the proverbial “looks is nothing,” 
for his book proves him to be not only a man of vast reading 
and stout brain, but to be a man of refinement of feeling as 
well. The thesis which is maintained is that the soul of man 
is not of its own nature immortal, but, according to the old 
Xian doctrine, “intermediate,” i.e. made for eternal life but 
not necessarily attaining it. In other words he would take 


49 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


literally the saying “the wages of sin is death, but the gift 
of God is eternal life through Jesus X our Lord.” He prefers 
to dwell as much as possible on the positive side of his doctrine, 
using the phrase “X our Life” as his motto rather than 
“Annihilation of the wicked.” ... 

The doctrine involved is one to which I have long had a 
leaning, as being the best solution of the world problem, and 
the book has consequently had a great interest for me. I 
never saw an American book which contained proofs of such 
extensive reading, and I never saw any book of a controversial 
nature, written in so Xian a temper, and with such an evi- 
dently earnest desire to state the opponent’s case fairly. 

It will be well worth your putting yourself to some trouble 
to obtain it, for apart from its value as an argument it is a 
perfect thesaurus of references and authorities on the subject 
discussed. Ancient and modern theology, domestic and foreign 
literature, seem equally familiar to him, while at the same time, 
if any one has a right to claim that exceeding stale and much 
abused title, “original thinker,” C. F. H. is the man. I mean 
to write to him and cross question him a little upon some points, 
however, which he leaves a little misty. .. . 

When I am convinced that the new theology is better than 
the old in the main, I will adopt it; as yet my preference is 
the other way. 

Of course it would be much better if the creeds could have 
an organic growth, adapting themselves moment by moment 
to the real needs of the age. But experience has shown that 
more evils spring from rash innovations in these matters than 
from a cautious reverence for the past. 

Unreal exigencies are mistaken for real ones, an assumed 
progress is found to be really a falling back, and when you 
have set your rudder on a new tack you find yourself unex- 
pectedly on the rocks. ‘The question with the teacher, whose 
case I have supposed, is this, “‘Shall I teach the received system 
or none at all?” 

The question with the Xian herald is, “Shall I sound a clear 
and certain note in preaching my religion, or shall I tell every 


50 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


man to look through the systems for himself and choose the 
one he likes best?” For scoff at the words “creed” and “sys- 
tem” as you will, we all have creeds, even those of us who re- 
nounce them most earnestly, and system builders we must be 
while we live. Whether the system of the Episcopal Church 
as embodied in the 39 Articles might not be advantageously 
curtailed and amended is another question and one upon which 
you might find me much more “liberal” than you suppose. .. . 

. . . It is very easy for me to see the cause of our differ- 
ences in our separate standpoints. Our views of the nature 
of the Bible and of X’s Kingdom on earth are wide apart and 
their variation accounts fully for this discussion. 

In regard to the first, whatever my theory of inspiration, 
and it is a pretty broad one, I never could so interpret Matt. 
xxiv 31-46 as to make it mean, “The day of judgment is 
now and forevermore. Wherever a sin is, there is God the 
Judge; wherever a holy action is, there is God the Rewarding 
Father.” Your philosophy is such as leads you to reject all 
_ notion of a crisis, whether of fall, redemption, or judgment. 
“Development” is too entirely the Gospel of this century to 
suffer me, who feel it intensely, to criticize your philosophy 
as such, but it does not seem to me quite biblical. Again your 
view of the K’dm of X makes it almost exclusively inward in 
its sense, and so you find it hard to comprehend why I, who 
hold that K’dm to be both outward and inward, should attach 
such value to a visible church and written articles of faith. 
{ think your premises will, if you follow them, carry you to 
the extreme of rationalism; you, perhaps, think that my 
premises will, if I follow them, carry me to the Missal and 
High Mass. 

Meanwhile God’s truth stands fast whatever you and I, 
young men in our twenties, hold. I do not doubt the sincerity 
of your search after that truth any more than I doubt my 
own. 

If we are humble and trusting children, I believe the Father 
will bring us both home at last. 

WILLIE, 


o1 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To F. E. A. 


Lowell Sept. 16th 1861. 
My Dear Frank: 

. . . Your letter comes to me at an important crisis of 
my life. The examination which is to decide whether or 
not I am to enter the Episcopal Church is to take place day 
after to-morrow. 

That you should have spoken, at just this time, so fully 
& so earnestly on the question of honor which you consider 
to be involved in that examination, strikes me as something 
more than a curious coincidence. You will agree with me, 
however, that I should be guilty of superstition were I to 
conclude, from the apparently providential nature of the 
event, that your advice ought to be followed whether in ac- 
cordance with my own judgment or not. All the meaning I 
have a right to attach to the circumstance is this, that it 
behooves me to weigh carefully, at this time, both sides of 
the most important practical question I have yet been called 
on to answer. ‘This I have endeavored to do, & whatever may 
be your private opinion as to the degree of influence which 
self-interest & old association have on me, I beg you will give 
me credit for, at least, an endeavor to be candid & dispassionate 
in what I shall have to say. ... 

When I wrote you my views in full on the subject of the 
4th Art. about six weeks ago I made a copy of what I wrote, 
verbatim, with the intention of presenting the same to my 
examiners. A “‘confessio fidei” written to a student of Uni- 
tarian Divinity whom the author, or confessor, is aiming to 
conciliate, 1s, you will grant, not the most politic contrivance 
with which to approach a straight-laced examiner, but I en- 
deavor in this way to avoid all danger of “toadying.” Fur- 
thermore I have written out, at large, my views on the only 
other points in the Articles which give me any serious trouble. 
If in the face of these statements of opinion the examiners & 
that Bishop who is notoriously the most narrow-minded in the 
country, see fit to admit me to the ministry of the Episcopal 
Church, I shall enter that ministry with a clear conscience & 


o2 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


a glad heart. Let me, at the risk of repetition, say why. 
In the first place you must be aware that the phrase “sub- 
scription of the articles” which you use so frequently, is at 
best only a figure of speech. No such subscription is re- 
quired. In the English Church the Articles are signed seria- 
tim, in the P. E. Ch. of U. S. they are not signed at all, but 
a statement is made to this effect (in writing) that the candi- 
date assents to the doctrine & usages of said church. What 
this doctrine is it is the Bishop’s business, with the prayer 
book as a guide, to decide. 

The Bishop’s judgment in such a case as mine is the law, 
unless appealed from, just exactly as the Judge’s opinion 
on a question of “common law” is in itself the law. 

You would not feel bound in honor to satisfy yourself that 
the decision given in your favor by a Massachusetts judge 
was in accordance with the opinions of all the judges in all 
the other 32 states, before availing yourself of the privileges 
accruing to you. No more do I feel called on to make known 
my exact position “to the world” if there is a clear & full 
understanding between my legal examiners & myself. The 
question, it seems to me, lies wholly between us. I shall try 
during my ministry to make known my views as fast as I can 
to the small “world” I shall have about me. If at any time 
I am charged with heresy, I can have the privilege of a trial. 
At present, as I say, the point of honor seems to me to lie 
in Bp. Eastburn’s study & nowhere else. I wish you might 
be there, in the spirit, next Wednesday morning, to see whether 
or no I meet the emergency like a “whole man.” Please tell 
me explicitly in your next whether what I have now said seems 
to you to contain marks of either special pleading or self 
deception. JI have sincerely tried to express my honest con- 
viction. 

Do not suppose I am insensible to the warmth & earnest- 
ness of the words in which you speak of my “noble oppor- 
tunity,” & urge me to be truly great. As to the opportunity 
I fully appreciate what it is, perhaps even better than you 
who are at a distance can do. Were I to follow your advice, 


53 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


so far from its bringing me “obloquy, hisses, scorn,” etc. it 
would bring me applause & influence. Spiritual heroism is 
a very marketable commodity in this neighborhood, but what 
little I have read of Church History has convinced me that 
there is such a thing as a selfconceit of martyrdom, & so there 
are dangers on all sides of us. God help us, we need it sadly 
enough, all of us. I confess, Frank, the work of pulling down 
is distasteful to me. I would rather build up. It seems to 
me that the more we rend what should be X’s seamless robe 
—his Church—the more we retard the coming of his kingdom. 
If I am indeed compelled to make disturbance in that branch 
of X’s Church which I love best it will be done with sorrow 
& reluctance. The question is not how to win a name or get 
at the head of a movement, but simply how best to please 
the Master, how bring most souls to him; I feel that J can best 
accomplish this last end by quiet, unobtrusive work as a pro- 
claimer of the Gospel. 

And now let me bring this long letter to a close by asking 
you to reconsider this sentence, “But it is all idle . . . the 
past will still weave its network of associations around you 
& you will do as so many other noble men have done, reason 
yourself into acquiescence & sign the articles.” Is this quite 
generous, thus to assume that men, confessedly noble up to 
a certain point, cease to be so the moment their judgment 
on a moral question begins to diverge from your own? 
Would it not be more charitable & at the same time quite 
reasonable to take for granted that their nobility cannot have 
forsaken them so suddenly, but that there must be some un- 
explained difference in your points of view which if under- 
stood would make all clear. As to my being under the bond- 
age of associations, let me remind you (though I am reluctant 
to do it) that my associations did not prevent my leaving the 
Church of my childhood for a Unitarian Society in College 
because I thought it right to do so, although that change in- 
volved more unpleasant consequences & estrangements than 
you ever knew of. I trust I have not gathered cowardice since 
then, nor lost the power of moral discrimination. Finally, 


54 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


Frank, (& this is really finally, for you must be tolerably 
tired by this time) let me assure you that your letter has been 
received in the same spirit in which it was composed. I could 
have wished it to breathe a fuller confidence in my integrity 
& manliness, but that is a small matter & not worth think- 
ing of, I know that you wrote what you thought it was your 
duty as a friend to write & I thank you for it. Father has 
just put his head in at the door & exhorted me to go to bed, 
advice which for various reasons I hold good. Give me your 
prayers as well as your criticisms my dear friend, & believe 
me always 
Faithfully yours, 
Wie R. H. 


To F. E. A. 


Cambridge Sept. 30th, 1861. 
My Dear Frank: 

. . . It gives me great pleasure to be able to tell you that, 
after an examination of three hours & a half, on the 18th 
inst. before the Bishop & two of his clergy, I was declared 
competent and am to be ordained Deacon at Grace Church 
to-morrow. I wish you might be there. It is right for me 
to say that I did not read the statement of my belief as to 
the resurrection of the body, which I told you I should read, 
but for this reason. I stated my view orally in answer to the 
examiner’s questions, & then took the paper containing the 
formal statement from my pocket, with the intention of read- 
ing it, when such reading was objected to, on the ground that 
what I had already said was entirely satisfactory. ... 

I have got involved in a correspondence with Annihilation 
Hudson which promises to be interesting. He has a long 
head. I don’t know when I have received a more genial & 
warming letter than the one I mentioned as having come to 
me from James Fay. It was in answer to a note asking him 
to come to my Ordination. He says “I hear with joy the news 
that you are safely through your examination & most heartily 
congratulate you on it. And do you think I would miss the 

55 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


opportunity of seeing you start on your work? No! Thank 
you for notifying me of your ordination & be sure that I will 
be there to lend my prayers that you may ‘exercise your 
ministry duly.” Such hearty & cheering words of encourage- 
ment & God speed I value more than I can express, for the 
work I am engaged upon in Boston is discouraging & at times 
my heart sinks in me. 

. . . Loring is going to the war. He goes as a non-com- 
missioned officer—Sergeant Major of the 26th & I respect 
him greatly for it. Most of the Boston young men scout the 
idea of entering the army without shoulder straps, but old 
Loring acts from conscientious motives & he will have his re- 
ward, 

Always faithfully your friend, 
Wiis R. H. 


4 bai 08 Da FY, 


Lowell, Dec. 10th, 1861. 
Dear FRANK: 

... You close one of your paragraphs with the state- 
ment (which, I confess, surprised me, coming from one who 
has thought as much as you) “Logic at last rules the world.” 
Had you said “Reason at last rules the world,” I would have 
assented, for I hold, with Henry More, that ‘“‘to take away 
reason, under whatsoever fanatical pretense, is to disrobe the 
priest & to despoil him of his breastplate, & what is worst of 
all, to rob Xianty of that special prerogative it has above all 
other religions in the world, namely, that it dares appeal 
unto reason.” But I also hold that our reason may teach 
us that to be true which to our understanding appears false 
& contradictory... . 

It is my firm conviction that, until a man has learned to 
know a law higher than the laws of thought there is no logical 
resting place for him short of universal skepticism. Out of 
Jesus Christ I see no room for anything but doubt. Faith 
in a personal Saviour is all that keeps me from positivism. 
You say that “any theology which admits necessary contra- 

36 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


diction in itself is doomed,” but if I ever used the term “‘neces- 
sary contradiction” (as J think I never did in this connection) 
it was through inadvertence, for I should have said “apparent 
contradiction.” I do not believe there is any “necessary con- 
tradiction” either in the existence of evil or in man’s responsi- 
bility for sin, but I do see, in spite of what you say, apparent 
contradiction in both, and I hold it to be the very victory of 
our faith to take God at his word notwithstanding. .. . 

I have agreed to take the principal editorial charge of the 
“Church Monthly” during the coming year, and hope to make 
a live thing of it.... 


To F. E. A. 
Lowell, Jan. 7th, °62. 


My Dear Franx: 

Your letter was handed me on New Years day and I take 
my earliest opportunity to reply. I am sincerely sorry that 
any ill-expressed sentence of mine, coming to you at a time 
when you seem to have been overtasked and nervous, should 
have given you unnecessary annoyance. 

I certainly did not intend to charge you with want of candor, 
a quality which I consider you to possess in an eminent de- 
gree. Looking back, however, upon your letters as a whole, 
and perceiving that we have been found to differ upon almost 
every possible subject from the laws of thought down to those 
of simple good breeding—and learning further, from this last 
letter, that owing to my ignorance of elementary philosophy 
you are at a loss to know how to discuss a subject with me, 
I have to propose that our correspondence, either with this 
letter or your reply (I am indifferent which) shall, for the 
present, cease. In thinking of this subject three possible 
courses presented themselves to my mind. Ist, to continue the 
discussion; but that was precluded by your express statement 
of my incompetency. 2d, to continue our correspondence, 
tabooing theology; but that I was sure would prove equally 
irksome to us both. 3d, for the sake of securing the per- 
petuity of our friendship and for the sake of avoiding the 


57 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


alienation which must sooner or later come from so vexatious 
a method of debate, to take the only other alternative and 
discontinue our correspondence. Of course I am not ignorant 
that a very simple and easy conclusion to be drawn from my 
action is that I desire to avoid the ignominy of surrender by 
retreat. If you really in your heart think this to be the rul- 
ing motive of my course, I will not say a word to disturb so 
comfortable a belief. I have my own opinion as to the reason 
why our discussion has proved so fruitless and unsatisfactory, 
but it is needless to propound it. 

In bidding you, for the present, good-bye, I entreat you, 
by all you hold sacred to acquit me of anything like anger, 
haughtiness or pique. Nothing could be further from my real 
mood. 

My motive in taking this step is a longing to preserve rather 
than a desire to destroy our friendship. There is now no 
young man of my acquaintance whom I can, in any adequate 
sense of the word, call friend. I do not propose indulging in 
any sentimental whining on this subject, but I should be false 
were I to deny that the consciousness of the fact fills me at 
times, with a sadness very profound. 

My acquaintances, however, are very, very kind and I 
should be ungrateful to complain. Meanwhile there is for all 
of us one friend, and the better you and I love Him, the better 
we shall love each other. 


Tock Bea. 


Lowell, Sept. 9th, 1862. 
My Dear Frank: 

Although our correspondence has been, for good reasons, 
temporarily broken off, I cannot feel that our friendship has 
been or will be. 

Believing that you think with me on this point, I write to 
tell you of an event which I know will interest you & which I 
should be sorry to have you hear from any other source. I 
am engaged to be married. The woman I love is. Theresa 
Reynolds, youngest daughter of Dr. Reynolds of Boston. She 

38 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


is own cousin to your old Latin School friend Blagden of whom 
I have heard you speak so often, so you see you have at least 
one link of association with her. 

I hope when Providence brings us nearer together, as one 
of these days it is going to do, that you will know Theresa, 
who already feels that she partly knows you through my 
account of you. What times we are living in, Frank! I trust 
the prosperity of your school is not seriously affected by them. 
I was unable to be in Cambridge on Commencement Day and 
have not seen many ’59ers of late. 

I learn however that very many are enlisting under the 
new call. Jim Schouler goes as a lieutenant. With kind re- 
membrances to your wife & to your sister, if she is with you 

I remain as ever faithfully yours. 


To THE ABOVE, ABBOT REPLIED as FoLLows 


Meadville, Pa. Sept. 20th, 1862. 

I send you my sincere congratulations on your engagement, 
which I trust may be the precursor of a true spiritual marriage. 
Whatever gives you joy will make me rejoice also; whatever 
gives you sorrow will bring me pain. On this your birthday, 
I wish you a happy, useful, and honored life. 

I regret that I feel obliged to write this note. Your letter 
of last January made it impossible for me to permit a re- 
newal of our former intercourse. I presumed that before 
sending it you had prepared yourself for its natural conse- 
quences. Silence was the only course which either dignity or 
wisdom would allow. Your reasons were doubtless satisfactory 
to yourself, and on such a subject there remained nothing for 
me to say. I am somewhat surprised that you seem to have 
expected a different result. You have misunderstood my 
character, and miscalculated the relative strength of tender- 
ness and self-respect, not by overestimating the former, but 
by under-estimating the latter. You have placed me in a 
position from which weakness only would allow me to recede; 
I speak frankly, our intimacy is at anend. It pains me to see 
the written words; it would pain me still more to say them to 


59 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


your face. For I love you now as ever: I may add that to 
what I have written. But I prefer your involuntary respect 
to a self-complacent, half-contemptuous love. 

I am glad that henceforth you will have little need of me. 
There can be no chasm in your heart now, when life wears to 
you so fair a hue. But if it were not so, I should not sacrifice 
the right to respect myself through any weak compassion for 
you or for myself. It is because I reverence our past that I 
protect our future. ) 

If God ever brings you to a season of distress, and I can 
really help you, it will require no asking to bring me to your 
side. ‘Till then, may He keep you in his holy keeping! 

Frank E. Apzor. 


To James H. Fay 


Lowell, Sept. 10th, 1862. 
My Dear Jim: 

You must have thought it very strange of me, not to say 
rude, to have left your cordial and every way delightful letter 
so long unanswered. The secret of my silence is that I have 
been waiting till I might be able to tell you of an event which 
has made me very happy and which I am sure will interest you 
as deeply as any of my friends. Since your letter reached 
me I have become engaged. The woman I love is Theresa 
Reynolds, the youngest daughter of Dr. Reynolds of Boston. 
I am not going to enlarge upon her perfections because that 
sort of thing is always reckoned part of the disease, you know. 
I will only say that I am very anxious to have you know her, 
and love her as I am sure you will when you do know her. I 
am equally anxious to have her know you, and indeed I fancy 
she half knows you already from what I have told her of you. 

I understand thoroughly your lonely feeling, there in the 
great noisy city away from everyone you love, and you may 
be sure you have all my sympathy. Still I will tell you for 
your comfort, that never in all my life did I learn so much 
of the best of all love, the Saviour’s, or feel so deeply the best 
of all peace, the peace of God, as during the time when to all 

60 


COLLEGE AND AFTER 


outward appearances I was most lonely, most afflicted, most 
forsaken. No greater desolation can fall into my life than 
did fall when my mother died, and yet out of that death I 
gained life, and through the loss of my best earthly friend 
found as I had never found before the best of all friends. 

You say it is hard to realize a spiritual presence. I know 
it. I find it very hard. But are not all best things hard in 
the attainment? And ought we not as men to be willing to 
strive with all our might for such a glorious privilege as a 
friendship, indestructible, eternal and divine? It seems to me 
we ought. Especially in such times as we are passing through 
only think what an unspeakable comfort the love of Christ 
might be to us if we only made it real, or in other words simply 
believed the promises of the Bible just as they stand. I should 
think people who have placed all their faith in “progress” and 
“human development” and “the march of intellect”? would be 
sadly dumbfounded at the signs of the times and wholly at a 
loss where to look for comfort. But we as Christians surely 
have a right to feel that although every government on earth 
turns out corrupt and tumbles to pieces, there is one King who 
knows how to rule and one “City which hath foundations whose 
builder and maker is God.” Nothing but this thought keeps 
my spirits up through all this gloom. 

On the ruins of men’s kingdoms the Kingdom of God may 
yet be built. With all my heart I pray for it to “come.” 


61 


III 


ALL SAINT'S CHURCH, WORCESTER 


[ve rectorship at All Saints falls naturally into 


two almost equal parts. The first decade was 

spent in quiet, intensive work, which was fruit- 
ful in the upbuilding of a strong and peculiarly loyal 
and devoted parish. They were busy and happy years. 
The year 1871 marks the beginning of the second dec- 
ade. His assured place as a leader in the diocese be- 
came apparent in his championship of Bishop Paddock 
in the election of a bishop which then took place. In 
the fall of that year he was sent to the General Con- 
vention, of which he was to continue a member to the 
end of his life, through thirteen consecutive conventions. 
There he speedily assumed a position of great signifi- 
cance, and came to be recognized as a foremost figure 
in the Church at large. It was in 1872 that Mrs. 
Huntington died, an event which left an indelible mark 
upon his life and character, and served as a consecra- 
tion of his gifts and labors to the Master’s service. A 
few months later the church in Worcester was burned, 
and the parish felt itself strong enough to inaugurate 
under his guidance the building of a stately and beauti- 
ful stone church. In the second decade of the rector- 
ship there followed the assured development, upon the 

62 


ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH, WORCESTER 


foundations which he had so faithfully laid, of his in- 
fluence as a commanding figure in the rapidly growing 
parish and city, and of his prominence and helpful 
leadership in the national Church. 

It was during the second decade that the growing 
parish called for more ministerial work than the rector 
unaided could supply, and that from time to time an 
assistant was appointed. Among these assistants were 
the Rev. George E. Osgood, who was to fill a long and 
notable rectorship at North Attleboro, in Massachu- 
setts, and Alexander Mackay-Smith, later the Bishop 
of Pennsylvania. 

The work at All Saints was inaugurated by the ordi- 
nation of the new rector to the priesthood, the service 
taking place in the Worcester Church a few weeks after 
his acceptance of the rectorship. Dr. Nichols was 
senior warden of the parish, and had much to do with 
calling the new rector. Bishop Eastburn and Dr. Vin- 
ton, whom he had consulted in regard to the young 
man, said, “Do not wait to hear him, but take him.” 
He had been “taken,” and now Dr. Nichols was in 
charge of the arrangements for the ordination. To 
him the young rector, careful of detail, writes that “it 
may be well to have the surplices (if you have more 
than one) put in good order, whitened and pressed.” 
He says further that he will ask Dr. Huntington of 
Kmmanuel, who is to be preacher, to bring his gown; 
and advises Dr. Nichols to have things in readiness for 
the Holy Communion, which, as appears from the 
Prayer Book, is customary after the ordination, though 

63 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


“he does not know whether Bishop Eastburn will de- 
sire it.” 

The parish to which the young Huntington came was 
twenty years old. There had been an earlier attempt, 
by the Rev. Mr. Vail, the future Bishop of Kansas, 
to start an Episcopal Church in Worcester, but it had 
failed. In 1839 the Rev. Thomas M. Clark, Secretary 
of the Board of Missions, afterward Bishop of Rhode 
Island, reports that ‘Charlestown and Worcester are 
towns of so wide extent and so rapid in their growth, 
that it becomes the Episcopal Church to let its doc- 
trines and services be made known there very speedily.” 
The work was begun in 1842, and in the twenty years 
there had been nine different rectors or ministers-in- 
charge. During this time there had been several inter- 
vals when there was no settled rector, and the parish 
had been without constructive leadership. The church 
was a small wooden building, standing between two 
houses. It was one of Upjohn’s cheaply built, Gothic 
structures, originally not without a certain dignity in 
proportions, but spoiled by alterations. The parish 
was obscure and struggling, in a community where there 
was a prosperous and rapidly increasing population. 
The young rector found a small group of earnest 
people who loved the church. Besides this there was 
not much. But there was Worcester; and Worcester 
was a strategic center, with promise of a great future, 
and at that time had a population of over twenty-five 
thousand, a population which during the years of his 
ministry was destined to increase threefold. This was 

64 





THE FIRST ALL SAINTS , WORCESTER 


2 


Soto rast ate 





ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH, WORCESTER 


the opportunity, and it was an opportunity which Hunt- 
ington seized and made the most of. The parish began 
almost immediately to grow. In two years’ time the 
church was enlarged, a new organ installed, and the 
property in the rear of the church purchased. At the 
end of five years the house adjoining the church had 
been secured for a rectory, and plans set on foot for 
the further enlarging of the church, and for turning 
the dwelling-house in the church’s rear into a chapel. 
At the same time, the pews, which had up to that time 
been owned by individuals, were by gift or purchase 
made the property of the parish. Further additions 
and improvements in church and chapel marked the im- 
mediately succeeding years. 

This physical growth was but the symbol of the ad- 
vance in the parish’s inner life. 

The minister was a thoughtful and a constructive 
preacher. The text of his first sermon was: “We 
preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and 
ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.” Twenty 
years later, in reviewing his rectorship, he took the same 
words for his text at the morning service, and at the 
evening service repeated the sermon of twenty years 
before. In this fact we see the abiding consciousness 
of the ideal he set before himself, and the consistency 
with which he pursued his work as teacher and preacher. 
What he conceived that task to be he tells his people in 
the sermon which marks the close of his twenty years. 
He had behind him, he says, these convictions, “that 
the person and work of Christ Jesus furnish the key 

65 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


to human history; that He alone has in His keeping the 
answers to the importunate questions of the soul; and 
that apart from Him our whole life here on earth is a 
tangled web of contradictions, uncertainties and illu- 
sions.” Starting from these convictions, he undertook 
to preach a personal Saviour, to lead men to realize the 
attractive power of his personality, and through Him 
to apprehend the meaning of the great truths of re- 
ligion, and to find access to God in prayer. He had 
made one of his prime topics “the interdependence of 
the sacrificial and the exemplary features of the death 
of Christ, and our need of coupling the two together 
in our theologizing if we would rightly apprehend the 
full purport of the cross.” And furthermore, he re- 
minds his people that “his interpretation of the sym- 
bolism of fire in connection with spiritual penalty has 
differed from that commonly received, not to weaken 
the terrible menaces of God against sin, but rather so 
to report them that the sinner may see them to be credi- 
ble.” Of the sacraments he says: “I have laid stress 
upon them more in the way of persuading you to their 
observance than by trying to make plain the reasons of 
their efficacy. It has always seemed to me that the 
sacraments might be considered as speaking for them- 
selves; in fact, they were instituted partly for the very 
purpose of saying certain things to us more eloquently 
and more adequately than words could do it, and that 
therefore to administer the sacraments faithfully was 
more truly the clergyman’s part, than to make them the 
staple of his preaching. Christ gave his apostles cer- 
66 


ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH, WORCESTER 


tain things to do. The sacraments are acts, and they 
have a persuasiveness of their own. One of them says 
‘Come.’ The other says ‘Abide.’ The pulpit cannot 
add anything to the power of this sign language. It is 
its own interpreter. The philosophy of Holy Baptism 
is intricate; the command, ‘Arise and be baptized,’ sin- 
gularly plain. The Holy Eucharist has never been suc- 
cessfully explained, but how many to their great and 
endless comfort have taken it unexplained, and given 
God thanks.” 

It will be seen from the above that he studiously 
avoided those conventionalities in preaching most cur- 
rent when he began his ministry, and which charac- 
terized on the one hand the evangelical and on the other 
the tractarian. In his function as preacher he was dis- 
tinctly a Broad-churchman, though he avoided through- 
out his ministry, so far as he was able, being tagged 
with a label. The discussions in regard to evolution, 
and the conflicts between science and religion which 
marked the years of his ministry at Worcester, did not 
apparently much disturb him. He considered the ques- 
tion of man’s origin “fascinating” but unimportant, 
and felt that science’s researches were, to say the least, 
unlikely to disprove the truth that man was made “in 
the image of God”; and rested in what at any time but 
the early sixties would have seemed a curiosity of 
rationalizing, that “a just critique of the early chapters 
of Genesis could only be written by a contemporary of 
the events described.” 

He was convinced of the necessity for grounding 

67 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


ethical sanctions upon the grand affirmations of faith, 
rather than on mere utility, and of the fact that duty 
was something owed directly to Almighty God; and 
upon this conviction he carried on his discussion upon 
family religion, upon the observance of Sunday, and 
upon temperance. In regard to the temperance ques- 
tion, though himself a total abstainer, he stood prac- 
tically alone, as he himself testifies, among the wise and 
good in the community, in his advocacy of high license, 
as opposed to prohibition, convinced “that the use of 
stimulants cannot be abolished by any prohibiting meas- 
ure that stops short of the absolute suppression both of 
the manufacture and the importation of alcohol, which 
he knows to be out of the question.” 

Although his presentation of the great doctrines of 
Christianity and of the chief sanctions of morality was 
peculiarly well ordered, and systematically carried on 
through the unfolding years of his ministry, in contrast 
with the haphazard topic-choosing of many preachers, 
he nevertheless makes the confession that he sees 
plainly, as his people doubtless do, “that the distribu- 
tion of emphasis has not been invariably well-judged.” 

In regard to the general effectiveness of his preach- 
ing as such, apart from his personal influence and pas- 
toral relations, he is peculiarly keen in his self-analysis, 
and what he says would doubtless be acknowledged as 
true by those who were continuously listeners in the 
pews, could such be induced to give their testimony: 
“A thing lacking in my sermons, has been, as I am per- 
fectly well aware, the direct personal appeal. I have 

68 








DR. HUNTINGTON AT WORCESTER 


ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH, WORCESTER 


trusted too implicitly to the converting power of the 
clear-cut features of the force of truth. But statement 
is not enough. Statement, perhaps, is half the battle; 
it is not the whole of it. Persuasion is the weapon 
that wins the day.” 

It goes without saying that to every detail of the 
service, Dr. Huntington, with his love of the Prayer 
Book and his clear vision of its possibilities as an in- 
strument of worship, gave his scrupulous care. His 
very manner in the chancel inspired one to devotion. 
“His eye never roved about the church as if to learn 
who was there or was not there. He was there himself 
to worship God and not to gratify an idle curiosity.” 

On Palm Sunday, 1868, the choir of men and boys 
first sang in All Saints, “all dressed in their best 
clothes.” The only other choir of the kind then exist- 
ing in the diocese, it was said, was that of the Church 
of the Advent, Boston. 

To the administration of the parish he brought his 
natural aptitudes as organizer, and that precision and 
symbolical orderliness of mind which characterized him. 
He saw at a glance the possibilities for strengthening 
the life of the parish in the different groups and guilds, 
if once they were effectively organized, and he forth- 
with organized them. What he accomplished as orga- 
nizer in the first years at All Saints he accomplished 
once for all, not only for the future development of 
that parish, but later larger activities of his future New 
York experience. It became merely a question of 
application and expansion. The necessary organiza- 

69 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


tions evolved of themselves. Some of the things 
thought out and brought to realization in All Saints in 
the seventies are the accepted and matter-of-course ad- 
juncts of parochial activity now. ‘They were experi- 
ments and novelties then. It is said that the first 
Parish Year Book issued in this country emanated 
from All Saints, and that little book of a few pages is 
the model of the large volume which parishes publish 
to-day, and contains in the germ, and even in some de- 
tails of feature and arrangement, the characteristics of 
its imitators and successors. 

The rector’s Kaster Report gave each year a scrupu- 
lous accounting of the parish charities. ‘These during 
the first year of the rectorship amounted to something 
over five hundred dollars, and during the tenth year had 
increased to five or six times that amount. “We have 
reason to thank God,” he wrote in 1869, “for any and 
every indication that the habit of giving is becoming a 
part of our religion.” 

The apologetic tone with which, six years after the 
beginning of his ministry, he advocates “‘systematic giv- 
ing,” produces a curious impression. His advocacy 
of it is another testimony also to his leadership in paro- 
chial methods. In a circular, he writes to his people: 
“It is very far from my mind to force any plan of this 
sort upon those to whose judgment it does not com- 
mend itself. Giving has little significance of any sort, 
and certainly no religious significance, when it is not 
perfectly willing and cheerful. I only ask for this 

70 


ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH, WORCESTER 


method of systematic giving that it be not hastily pre- 
judged, or thoughtlessly condemned.” 

Meantime the pastor went in and out among his 
people, cementing their lives to him by his ready and 
understanding sympathy. One of his parishioners of 
those early days, a confirmed invalid for many years, 
gives the striking and revealing testimony that ‘one 
very marked characteristic of his was his way of im- 
pressing the idea that he was completely at leisure and 
with nothing more pleasant for the day than the call 
he was making.” Another tells of his love for the chil- 
dren of his parish: “He was ever young with his 
young people, in serious moods as well as gay. He 
won their affection as little children, and then their con- 
fidence, and it was always easy to go to him when in 
perplexity. A chosen few will never forget his 
Twelfth Night parties at the rectory, and how he kept 
them entertained every moment, joining in their rollick- 
ing games of ‘Blind man’s buff’ and ‘Going to Jeru- 
salem.’ His merry laugh still rings in the ears of at 
least one of those children.” 

Still another writes: “I cannot remember when I 
did not both love and fear him. He set high standards 
for the Pearl Street children and influenced all our lives 
in the finest ways. And then what fun we had when 
he played with us. No one made us laugh so heartily. 
He was the heart and soul of the Thanksgiving night 
charades, and he knew the most unusual games. He 
could be so amusing without ever losing his dignity, and 

71 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


so serious without ever losing his kindliness, that he was 
always an inspiration to us.” 

The observance of the Church year, and more es- 
pecially the joyous participation of the children in the 
great festivals, seized the imagination of the people of 
the city more perhaps than any other one thing, as, 
under its enthusiastic young rector, All Saints took a 
place of prominence and influence, for the first time, 
among the churches of the town. “In the light of en- 
quiry and experience,” as the minister of All Saints 
himself put it in his anniversary sermon, “the advan- 
tages enjoyed by an ancient historical church, in the 
way both of stability and of a wise inclusiveness, came 
to be clearly seen. Slowly but surely the old associa- 
tions of the Church’s commemorative year, and of her 
ritual of worship, reasserted themselves, and won a 
place in the affections of the community.” People 
turned their steps toward All Saints, and the children 
led the way. At this time, Dr. Huntington’s publica- 
tion of “The Church Porch” not only led his own chil- 
dren to learn to worship, but had a wide influence 
throughout the church in bringing in a truer under- 
standing of the children’s place and needs in a parish’s 
life and worship. 

It was in the autumn following his ordination that 
his marriage to Miss Reynolds took place, and the wife 
almost immediately assumed an acknowledged position 
in the life of the parish, by the side of the new minister. 
A parishioner who was present at church in those early 
days writes of her: 

72 


ALL SAINTS’ CHURCH, WORCESTER 


While the young minister, who had just taken charge of the 
parish, came to the desk, before service, to find and mark the 
lessons, I stole a glance across the aisle at my opposite neigh- 
bor, “the minister’s wife.’ No one, who remembers the face 
when it first appeared among us, will deny that it was a 
marvellous vision of beauty and loveliness, or greatly wonder 
when I confess that it divided my attention with her husband’s 
sermon. 


Together, with joy and enthusiasm, they planned 
and labored for the first nine years of the Worcester 
rectorship. “My parish owes my wife quite as much 
as it does me,” wrote Huntington to a friend in 1870. 
Then, in the fall of 1872, Mrs. Huntington died, leav- 
ing her husband overwhelmed with a sense of loneli- 
ness, and with four small children to be cared for. 
There were those ready to say that Mrs. Huntington 
had been killed by overwork, and that it never should 
have been permitted that cares of home and parish to- 
gether be laid upon the shoulders of one frail woman. 
But even these knew in their hearts that it could not 
have been otherwise, that the two must have inevitably 
lived and worked together, unitedly in all ways, for 
their beloved people’s sake. Huntington’s grief was, 
in a peculiarly literal sense, uspeakably great. He 
withdrew into the secret places of his soul with his sor- 
row, and with the sacred memory of his beloved. “He 
could never speak of her,” testifies his son, “‘even to the 
children, except on the rarest occasions.” On that 
Thanksgiving day he writes a letter to his people, 
thanking them for the memorial which they had given, 
and says: “The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of 

73 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Christ was very dear to her who was so dear to us, and 
while the words over the Lord’s table will always be 
there to guard against our forgetting that what we do 
is done in remembrance of Him, He surely will not 
count it sin in us if, sometimes, thoughts of His loyal 
and loving disciple come close to our minds to soothe 
and bless.” 

Mrs. Huntington’s older sister, Miriam Phillips 
Reynolds, came to Worcester to care for the children 
and to keep the house, and the duties of this position 
she continued faithfully to perform until her death in 
1908. 


74 


IV 


AT ALL SAINTS 


newed vigor that the minister now took up the 

work of the parish. “After all there is but one 
gospel,” he wrote to a bereaved friend years later, “for 
those of us into whose lives much sorrow has come,— 
‘the time is short. We must try and put a cheerful 
courage on.” In a few months the destruction of the 
church by fire gave a new direction to his labors, and 
what seemed for the moment a great calamity gave to 
a people, more united than ever because of it, just the 
needed impulse to move forward toward greater things. 
The fire came Easter Tuesday, 1874. Its origin was 
never discovered. 


] T was with an even greater enthusiasm and a re- 


It was characteristic, not only of his courage, but of 
the symbolic manner in which his thoughts naturally 
clothed themselves, that in the sermon of the Sunday 
after the fire he turned the minds and hearts of his 
people toward hope for a great future, by reminding 
them of certain signs of promise. In the first place, 
“the symbols, the material emblems of what may be 
called the four great institutes of our religion, the 
Bible, the pulpit, the font, and the Communion service, 

75 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


are unharmed and remain to us.” ‘Then, the last serv- 
ices of the old church had been the Easter services. 
They can never forget the throng of happy children 
whose sweet voices rang out clear and strong the carols 
of the resurrection. And finally, those various en- 
largements of the old church, which seem in a sense a 
waste, have taught the people their needs, and schooled 
them, as nothing else could, to be builders of that church 
of the future, which shall be in every way adequate and 
worthy. 

Within a month, after several parish meetings, 
a Building Committee was elected, with power to 
build a new church. Mr. Edward L. Davis was Chair- 
man of this Committee, and associated with him, among 
others, were Sumner Pratt, who had been for many 
years warden, John D. Washburn, and Charles M. 
Bent. A commanding site was purchased at the corner 
of Irving and Pleasant Streets, and the plans of 
Messrs. Earle and Fuller of Worcester were agreed 
upon. Before the end of the year ground had been 
broken, and during the following summer the corner- 
stone was laid by Bishop Huntington. ‘The work went 
steadily on, and at the same time, through extraordi- 
nary effort on the part of minister and people, the 
money for the church’s completion was raised, so that 
on Christmas day, 1876, the rector was able to announce 
that the first service would be that of consecration. 
The minister had told his people, quoting the canon 
which requires that a church be paid for before it is con- 
secrated, that they had an opportunity for the morally 

76 


SdHLS AYOLOUY HHL NO NOLONILDNOH *Ud 
TaALSHOUOM LV ANI AHL YALAV 


| 
J 








AT ALL SAINTS 


sublime. “Can anybody imagine,” he says, “a spec- 
tacle likely to produce a better moral effect upon the 
city of Worcester than the sight of a company of people 
who believe in their religion, building such a church as 
shall worthily express their notion of what a church 
ought to be, and then,—paying for it?” This service 
was held in January, 1877, the sermon being preached 
by the Bishop of the Diocese, Bishop Paddock. 

During this time of building, the rector of the parish 
had his hand upon every detail, in addition to carrying 
on the regular work of the parish. At the time of the 
fire, the churches of Worcester had graciously offered 
the use of their parish buildings, and for a time the 
vestry of Plymouth Church was used, and later a hall 
was hired for such services or meetings as were not held 
in the little chapel on Pleasant Street. During the 
period the parish raised one hundred and eighty thou- 
sand dollars, “the outcome of the courageous and self- 
sacrificing spirit that animated the hearts of all, young 
and old, rich and poor, who vied with each other in doing 
their utmost according to their means.” 

While the work was in progress, the rector became 
aware that All Saints’ Cathedral in Worcester, Eng- 
land, was undergoing material repairs, and stones from 
that ancient fabric were secured and incorporated in 
the walls of the Tower Porch. In a letter to the Dean 
of Worcester, sent by the hand of Mr. Washburn,’ one 


1John Davis Washburn from the beginning had been a tower of 
strength to the rector and to his fellow-vestrymen. In a Minute, testi- 
fying to his generosity and loyalty, prepared by Dr. Huntington for the 
“All Saints’ Scrap Book,’ after Colonel Washburn’s death in 1903, he 


77 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


of the vestry, Dr. Huntington writes, “We feel that 
our new church may claim some sort of distant kinship 
with the venerable building over which you preside, 
more especially as it is not impossible that in the next 
generation, or sooner, our Worcester also may become 
the mother city of a Diocese, and our church in a 
humble way Worcester Cathedral.” And he adds, “It 
has occurred to me as possible that one of the stones 
your builders have rejected might by a happy transfer 
become the head of our corner.” It was not possible to 
secure a stone suitable for a corner-stone, but some 
sculptured stones from the ancient Lady Chapel were 
sent, and the Dean wrote, expressing the hope that they 
might ““become a visible link between the old world and 
the new, between the Church of England and the 
Church of America, a witness to the ancient origin of 
both, and expressing as I wish they may be understood 
to do, the brotherly love between the older and the 
younger branches of the same stock’’; and he himself 
provides the inscription which is to be placed on a brass 
plate beneath them: 


These relics of Medieval Architectural Ornament once 
adorned the Lady Chapel of the Cathedral Church of Wor- 
cester, England, and are now presented to the Church of All 
Saints, Worcester, Massachusetts, by the Dean and Chapter 
of the above Cathedral as a token of Brotherly Regard and 
Christian Unity. 


The rector watched the building of the new church 
says, “I distinctly remember the fact that his personal attractiveness was 


one of the forces that drew me powerfully towards an acceptance of the 
call to the parish.” 
78 





AT ALL SAINTS 


almost stone by stone. One day he noticed that two 
doves had built a nest in the timbers of the chancel and 
he wrote for “The Woodbine,” the parish paper, these 
lines: 

Tue Cuurcnu Doves 


“Yea, the sparrow hath found her an house, and the swallow 
a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine 
altars, O Lord of hosts, my King, and my God.” 


Into the half-built Church, from out a sky 
That crimsoned all the West, 

Came mated doves, and ’mid the rafters high 
Fashioned their simple nest ; 

With busy beaks that quickly won their store 

Gleaning the treasures of the littered floor. 


And there, through all the work-day’s thrifty round 
Secure from touch of harm, 
The brooding mother let nor sight nor sound 
Her quietness alarm; 
But, gazing downwards on the toil and stir, 
Watched the deft hands that seemed to build for her. 


Within the Temple’s wall, though incomplete, 
My soul, seek thou thy rest; 
From storms a covert, refuge from the heat, 
And peace that none molest. 
Dear is the freedom of the open fields, 
But freest those whose nest God’s roof-tree shields. 


When the church was finished the two doves were 
painted high in the starry sky of the chancel ceiling. 
From the time of the new church’s completion until 
the end of his ministry in Worcester, a period of six 
years, the work of the parish went on uninterruptedly, 
79 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


All Saints growing all the while a stronger and more 
influential center. The rector’s vision of All Saints 
as the Central Mother Church, with four outlying 
churches named for the four evangelists, slowly took 
shape. All the while, on the wall of the chancel at All 
Saints, the figures of the four evangelists stood before 
the eyes of the congregation, as if moving in solemn 
procession toward some appointed goal. In many 
churches, either in figure or symbol, they find their ap- 
pointed place near the altar. Here there was added 
to their universal significance a special meaning, indica- 
tive of the parish’s labors and hopes. Already in 1869 
the first step had been taken looking toward St. Mat- 
thew’s Mission, and the church had been built, the first 
service being held on St. Matthew’s day. The others 
followed in due time and as needs arose, so that by the 
end of his life Huntington had seen his dream come 
true. In the last years of his life he writes of his great 
interest in the twentieth anniversary of St. Mark’s * 
and of his regret that he cannot be present, and of his 
looking forward to going to the consecration of St. 
Luke’s, “when, he rejoices to say, the group of Evan- 
gelists will be complete.” St. John’s had been started 
in 1883. 


1It was just a year after his going to Grace Church that Dr. Hunting- 
ton gave an impetus to the fund for St. Mark’s, by sending to Mrs. 
Bigelow “a piece of consecrated money,” given him years since by a young 
man who is now almost ready to be ordained, and asking her “to keep it 
against the right moment for the spade to be struck into the soil at the 
south end.” He adds: “I am not in the habit of dating my letters accord- 
ing to the ecclesiastical calendar, but God has so wonderfully prospered 
‘St, John’s Mission, that St. John’s Day seems the fitting moment to make 
mention of the Mission of St. Mark’s.” 


80 








ALL SAINTS’, WORCESTER 


AT ALL SAINTS 


His people followed with pride the part Huntington 
played in the larger life of the Church, and so closely 
were he and his people knit together in lively and af- 
fectionate interest that his underlying and compelling 
motive of Unity was sympathetically understood and 
responded to. 

He had endeavored to keep always in mind (and this 
they fully realized) that the Common Prayer belongs 
to the people just as really as to the minister, and that 
his “composite congregation was likely to find most edi- 
fying the ritual which clings impartially to the plain re- 
quirements of the Book of Common Prayer.” All the 
while the effectiveness of the parish’s life and the secret 
of its strength lay in ambitions as yet unfulfilled which 
were still ahead of it. Some of these are mentioned 
in the sermon of review which closed his twenty years. 
They are, a church open every day, with short services 
at morning and night, the weekly observance of the 
Holy Communion, the springing up of institutions 
about the church, an All Saints’ Home as well as an 
All Saints’ Church, an adequate staff of clergy and 
deaconesses. In the same sermon, he sums up finally 
his and his people’s ideal in these words: 


What of this Church’s relation to the community at large? 
It cannot be truthfully alleged that the spirit of the adminis- 
tration has been one of propagandism. And yet I frankly 
acknowledge that, from first to last, through these years, my 
heart’s desire has been to present the Episcopal Church in its 
most generous, sympathetic, comprehensive character as the 
best meeting-place for all honest Christian people who love 


81 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


peace. It has seemed perfectly possible to do this without 
at all slurring the distinctive features of the Church; without 
making fatal concessions to a creedless liberalism, for the sake 
of winning a cheap repute for breadth; and without taking 
up, in the hope of encouragement from other quarters, with 
that thin notion of unity which looks to find it in a confedera- 
tion of evangelical sects. 

I have loved the Episcopal Church, and have sought to win 
others to the love of it, not so much on account of what it 
has thus far done in this country, as on account of its manifest 
and marvellous, though as yet imperfectly developed ca- 
pabilities. 

The truth is, American Christianity is languishing to-day 
for the lack of a special enthusiasm, the inspiration of a 
definite purpose. There is a certain deadness in the air which 
all perceive. Now there is no rallying cry so contagious, so 
effective, as “Unity,” when once men take it up in earnest. 

A Church, elastic in its methods of work, reverent in its 
worship, not ambiguous or double-tongued as to its message, 
but firm in its grasp upon essentials while allowing the freest 
play of opinion as to all matters not of the essence of the 
faith; such is the Church for which the Republic waits, nay, 
towards which she moves. It has been with this conviction at 
the very ground of my heart that I have sought to make the 
administration of All Saints’ Parish a catholic and many- 
sided one, 


It had doubtless been a satisfaction to him, with his 
innate love of the symbol, that the compelling motive 
of unity had in the old church always found expression 
in the text which stood before the people’s eyes, over 
the chancel arch: “There shall be one Fold and one 
Shepherd.” At one of the periods of enlargement this 
had been changed to: “The Good Shepherd giveth his 

82 


AT ALL SAINTS 


Life for the Sheep.” But in the new church the finally 
approved text was: ‘Mine House shall be called a 
House of Prayer for all People.” 

If we have dwelt exclusively upon his parish activi- 
ties during the years of his stay in Worcester, it is not 
to be forgotten that he gave himself, at the same time, 
generously to the affairs of the city. He was always 
in the forefront of any movement for civic betterment. 
For a time he served on the School Committee. His 
fellow-citizens could count upon his sympathy and co- 
operation in all good causes, and they gave him freely 
their confidence and respect. 

The severing of the tie came in the fall of 1883. 
Upon the election of Dr. Potter as Bishop of New 
York, Dr. Huntington was called to succeed him as 
rector of Grace Church. It was an opportunity which 
appealed to him, not only in itself, as a rectorship sec- 
ond to none in the country in importance, but also be- 
cause it gave him a strategic center of influence for the 
carrying out of his cherished ambitions for the whole 
Church. Moreover, there was a sense in which he felt 
that his work in Worcester was finished. It might con- 
ceivably, since his foundation had now been securely 
laid, advance under new leadership to greater things 
than he himself could contrive. He was also not with- 
out the realization that he himself needed for the doing 
of his best work the stimulus of new problems and a 
new environment. It was hard to leave the present 
associations and friendships which had been so wrought 

83 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


into his life through such sacred and intimate experi- 
ences. ‘This, however, was a purely personal sentiment 
which he was probably called upon to disregard. 

There was only one consideration which gave him 
serious pause. It seemed to him vital, for the doing of 
the work for the Church to which he had consciously 
devoted himself, that he should retain his position in the 
General Convention. Such assurances as it was possi- 
ble to make were given him that he would be sent as a 
deputy from New York, and accordingly he accepted 
the call, and on All Saints’ day, 1883, became rector of 
Grace Church. And now, to his great chagrin, he 
found that the high pressure under which he had been 
living, by reason of his labors on Prayer Book revision, 
in connection with his parish work, had so told upon his 
strength that he must take a long rest. His physicians 
advised a period of travel abroad. The vestry of 
Grace Church gave him a long leave of absence, and he 
spent the next months in travel, with his son Frank, 
then a freshman at Harvard, not assuming active work 
in his new parish until the autumn of 1884. 

The call to New York was the occasion of a great 
outpouring of affectionate protest, which took various 
forms. ‘Many letters were sent to him from people 
heartbroken at the prospect of his going, filled with 
pleading and argument. One urges the unanimity of 
loyalty and affection as demanding his remaining, 
another the readiness of the people to pledge themselves 
to any and every forward movement if only he will 
stay; another testifies to the “overwhelming sense of 

84 


AT ALL SAINTS 


loss at the first meeting for service, in his absence, the 
feeling of terrible bereavement, the hopelessness arising 
from the conviction that someone very dear had 
vanished from the place of which he was the soul, the 
animate existence”; still another testifies to a lifelong 
habit of turning, in times of perplexity, to the Bible for 
a verse, and in this instance, of having opened in the 
Psalms to the verse, “This is my rest forever: here will 
I dwell, for I have desired it.” But those who knew 
him best, and who had the truest estimate of his abilities 
and his aims, knew from the first that it was a eall 
which he must accept, and that they could help him best 
by doing all in their power to make the sundering of 
ties less hard for him, and by making clear to him that 
it was a united and courageous people which he left be- 
hind him, ready to face the future and its tasks. ‘““You 
have failed miserably here,” wrote one of his stanchest 
supporters, “successful as you have seemed, if you see 
us now a little emasculated sect of personal idolaters, 
who are nothing except as we lean on you.” In the 
resolutions of the vestry, accepting the resignation, they 
declare that “They are comforted at this time by the 
remembrance that they have given him a steadfast and 
unwavering support; that they have rallied more and 
more closely around him as one after another calls of 
increasing significance and importance came to him; 
that they have never permitted him to doubt their per- 
sonal loyalty and devotion, and now that moving on 
from strength to strength, he has at last been sum- 
moned to one of the most important parochial positions 
85 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


in the church, they thank God and his teachings that 
they are able to see that the whole church is more than 
All Saints’ Parish, and that the Master may have a 
greater work for him than this field affords; that instead 
of selfishly attempting to detain him and make it more 
difficult for him to follow the dictates of an enlightened 
and Christian conscience, they can, amid all of personal 
regret and loss, trustingly believe that his decision is 
for the best and bid him an affectionate God-speed.” 

As is usual, at the time of severing “the pastoral 
ties,” there were those among the people who, in their 
grief at their great loss, were inclined to blame the ves- 
try, feeling that if these men had done more or done 
differently their beloved minister had not left them. 
It is with the knowledge of this situation that in his 
farewell Christmas letter to his people, Dr. Hunting- 
ton writes: “I would affectionately counsel you to 
have confidence in your chosen leaders. They are your 
representative men; having elected them to their post 
of honor and of responsibility, stand by them, 
strengthen their hands, give them your sympathy and 
your help. Nothing can be gained by blaming men 
who in difficult circumstances have done their very best. 
Abler leaders or more trustworthy you will scarcely 
find.” 

And he adds, turning their thoughts to the future: 
“And now what shall I say of your attitude toward the 
man who is to be to you in the future what I have tried 
to be in the past? Surely I can say no less than this: 
Deal with him as you have ever dealt with me: Trust 

86 


AT ALL SAINTS 


him. Give him credit for pure motives. Do not judge 
him in a little matter of costume or posture. When he 
desires to try something new in the line of administra- 
tive methods, so it be nothing plainly contrary to the 
law of the Church, second and encourage him. Do not 
be so inflexibly attached to the ways to which I have ac- 
customed you that in his eyes they shall grow to seem 
like hateful ruts. The life of the Church moves, and 
your new rector’s new methods will have as fair a prom- 
ise of proving wholesome and wise as ever mine 
hades’, 

“T part from you at the blessed Christmas time, the 
feast of peace on earth. May peace, the peace of God 
rule all your hearts. I leave you more full of hope for 
you than for myself, not expecting anywhere to find a 
better people or truer friends. I give you for a Christ- 
mas gift, what you have already, my love; and as a leg- 
acy I leave with you my unaccomplished plans.” 

The last address as minister of All Saints was on 
Christmas eve when, at the Christmas-tree service in the 
church, he spoke to the children on “The Secret of a 
Happy Life.” 

The parting was even harder than he had anticipated. 
“More than half of my heart,” he writes, in acknow]l- 
edging a Christmas gift from the people for his trip to 
Europe, “I leave in Worcester, here among you who 
have loved me so much better than I have deserved to 
be loved, and who are to me as none other, I fear, can 
ever be.” His feeling for his first parish, and his 
thought for its welfare, never relaxed. “In later 


87 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


years,’ writes one who knew him well, “‘one had but to 
mention the magic name of All Saints at the door of 
Grace Church to secure the most careful attention.” 
On his death-bed he charged those who were by him to 
“give a special message of good-bye to my dear friends 
at Worcester, and to let every attention be paid to them 
at the funeral service.” 


88 


V 
THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


URING the quiet years of upbuilding in 
Worcester, the work and influence of the rec- 
tor of All Saints were becoming recognized in 

the diocese and in the Church at large. He was win- 
ning the confidence of his fellow-churchmen every- 
where, and his abilities soon received recognition. 

In the convention of the diocese in 1871 he was 
elected preacher for the next Convention, and was at 
the same time chosen deputy to the General Conven- 
tion of that year. The Diocesan Convention of 1872, 
when Dr. Huntington chose for his text the words in Il 
Timothy, “I have fought a good fight, I have kept the 
faith,” was destined to be Bishop Eastburn’s last Con- 
vention. The General Convention had been held, and 
in the Bishop’s address he laments the fact that that 
Convention did not pass a “remedial canon” regarding 
“the tawdry commercialism which has invaded so many 
of our places of worship.” He adds: “What the 
great majority of our people expected and had a right 
to expect has not been done. The Bishops did their 
duty. But the House of Deputies refused, though the 
general feeling of that house was hostile to these popish 
abominations.” But there is “encouragement in the 

89 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


manifest impossibility that in any countries inhabited 
by the Anglo-Saxon race, and pervaded by Protestant 
sentiments, and by the Scriptural spirit of the Refor- 
mation, these corrupt mummeries of the dark ages can 
take root and flourish.” At the end of this his last 
address is to be found this characteristic peroration: 
“Our great business is to prepare fallen men for peace 
and happiness in death. But how are we to do this? 
Is it by hiding from them, by smooth words, their dis- 
eased and helpless condition? Is it by throwing vague- 
ness around the doctrine of a Redeemer’s substitution, 
and thus leaving them in ignorance of the only rem- 
edy? ... Is it by turning them away from the Cross 
of Christ to the gaudy ceremonial of ages of darkness?” 
But the Church was already thinking in different terms 
and discovering a new emphasis and following ideals 
undreamed by the Bishop of Massachusetts. Phillips 
Brooks had begun to preach at Trinity Church. An 
Episcopal Theological School had been established next 
door to Harvard College, with all that this implies. 
One of Dr. Huntington’s chief activities in the previous 
General Convention had been to guide the interest in 
the revival of the primitive order of Deaconesses, and 
he was the first named presbyter of the Commission ap- 
pointed on the subject. Moreover, plans concerning 
Church Unity were occupying his mind, and the mind 
of the Church. Two years before he had preached his 
sermon on the Quadrilateral, a sermon which was to 
bear fruit years later in the Chicago-Lambeth platform. 
And about the same time his book, “The Church. Idea,” 
90 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


had appeared. In connection with the thought of 
unity, interest in a revision and enrichment of the 
Prayer Book was beginning to shape itself in his 
thoughts. 

It was in the Massachusetts Convention in the spring 
of the next year that the leadership of Huntington be- 
came clearly apparent and that his parliamentary skill 
came to be fully recognized. The occasion was the elec- 
tion of Bishop Eastburn’s successor. ‘There had been 
a special convention called in December for the purpose 
of electing a bishop, which, as it turned out, had been 
in the nature of a dress-rehearsal. ‘The meeting was to 
have been in Trinity, but that church had been de- 
stroyed in the Boston fire, and the place was changed to 
St. Paul’s. There was a tenseness in the atmosphere, 
and party feeling was in evidence. There was a clear- 
ing of the ground for action. A new rule was adopted 
for the election of a bishop, providing for a vote by 
orders, on the call from three clergymen or three par- 
ishes. The clergy and laity met in different rooms for 
voting. Bishop Eastburn’s salary had been one thou- 
sand dollars, to which Trinity Church added a thousand 
dollars. A plan to make the salary six thousand dol- 
lars and to raise it by assessment on the parishes was 
adopted. The contest lay between Dr. Vinton, who 
presided, and Dr. Haight, the champions respectively 
of the Low-church and High-church parties. After 
ten minutes of silent prayer, following the singing of 
the “Veni Creator,” the ballots were cast, and Dr. 
Haight, with one vote to spare, was elected. And then 

91 | 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Dr. Haight, shortly after the convention’s adjourn- 
ment, declined. The Standing Committee, since “sharp 
division of opinion and active interest had been shown 
and developed,” decided against another special Con- 
vention and deferred the election until the regular 
meeting in the spring. The strength which the High- 
churchmen had shown in the election of Dr. Haight, 
due in large measure to reaction from the uncompro- 
mising and aggressive evangelicalism of the late bishop, 
led them to believe that they could do better still next 
time. The candidate chosen was Dr. De Koven, a pro- 
nounced Tractarian, a man, moreover, of the highest 
character and ability, and a leader of men. ‘To Dr. 
Huntington and those who were like-minded, it ap- 
peared to be a situation fraught with danger. Dr. De 
Koven could never adequately represent what was 
really the dominant characteristic in Massachusetts 
churchmanship. He must not be elected merely as the 
result of a reaction against the intolerable narrowness 
of the old régime. 

In the first instance Dr. Huntington had urged the 
election of Phillips Brooks. ‘We must have,” he said, 
“someone who can go to Harvard College and keep in 
touch with the life there.” It became evident, however, 
that Dr. De Koven’s defeat could be accomplished in 
only one way, not by attempting to force in a strong 
man of the opposite party, but by rallying forces about 
a middle-of-the-road man, who should stand on a plat- 
form of conciliation. 'The man chosen for this purpose 
was Dr. Paddock of Brooklyn, and it was largely 

92 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


through Dr. Huntington’s management and eloquence 
that his election was secured. After the clearly re- 
vealed deadlock of the first ballot, on which Dr. Potter 
of New York ran as Dr. De Koven’s opponent, Dr. 
Potter’s name was withdrawn, and the votes, which had 
numbered a dozen or so for Dr. Paddock on the first 
ballot, swung to him; on the second ballot his election 
was already clearly foreshadowed, and accomplished on 
the third. The backers of Dr. De Koven, who rejoiced, 
not only in his High-church views, but in his outstand- 
ing virility and saintliness, had attacked the “medioc- 
rity” and “the boarding-house tea” quality of the 
opposing candidate, when Dr. Huntington sprang to 
Dr. Paddock’s defense. An eye-witness has spoken of 
the scene as dramatic. “Just as along the stone wall at 
Gettysburg, so around the reading desk in old St. 
Paul’s, the struggle raged, Dr. Huntington rallying 
the forces around him, like the incoming waves of the 
sea. It was a sight not easily to be forgotten. The 
young leader appeared as a sort of modern Athanasius 
contra mundum.” In the course of his speech, Dr. 
Huntington had used with great effect, in his opposi- 
tion to the candidacy of Dr. De Koven, certain quota- 
tions from the candidate’s writings. In a letter written 
after the Convention to Mr. Beard, he exactly defines 
his purpose in this in the following words: ‘My ob- 
ject was to show that Dr. De Koven held and taught 
the doctrine of eucharistic adoration, and while I took 
pains to say that in my judgment he had a right to hold 
it, I argued that it was a disqualification for the posi- 
93 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


tion of Bishop of Massachusetts.” Bishop Paddock 
understood full well the significance of his election, and 
whole-heartedly devoted himself to the policy of concili- 
ation and to labors for the quiet growth of the Church 
in Massachusetts. His episcopate became a vindication 
of the wisdom of those who worked for his election. In 
his appointments he recognized both parties, and gave 
sympathetic encouragement everywhere.. In his first 
address, he spoke of Massachusetts as “a jurisdiction 
not devoid of difficulties, and yet full of the noblest in- 
spirations and capabilities, a diocese which prayed and 
longed for more union, love and zeal in the work of the 
Christ.” ? 

Dr. Paddock’s election was immediately followed by 
the election of Dr. Huntington for the first time to the 
Standing Committee, and on the first ballot. He con- 
tinued on this Committee for four years, but in 1877 de- 
clined his election. He was not lacking in appreciation 
of the honor conferred, but doubtless the work of this 
Committee was not specially congenial. The diocese 
chose to continue him as deputy to General Convention, 
and it was there, as he increasingly felt, that he had his 
true place of work and influence. In 1883, the year 
when his labors for Prayer Book Revision were laid be- 
fore the Church in the “Book Annexed,” he led all 
other candidates in the vote for deputies. 

In many other ways he was prominent in the affairs 
of the diocese. He was chairman of a special com- 
mittee on establishing a Church School for Girls, a plan 
urged by the Bishop but never brought to accomplish- 

94 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


ment. He was chairman of the Committee on the 
Church Temperance Society. He was alive to the de- 
fects in the methods of nomination to office in the dio- 
cese, and in 1881 brought in a scheme, as chairman of a 
Commission, by which lists of nominations were to be 
secured by calling for such from all clergy and parishes. 
The plan was defeated by non-concurrence, the clergy 
voting against it. The scheme was well-intentioned 
and had good features, but the diocese apparently be- 
lieved that the best plan is no plan. Nor has any com- 
prehensive plan ever been adopted. In 1881 Dr. 
Huntington was chairman of the Committee on Canons 
and wrote the report against enlarging the franchise of 
the clergy, a matter which had received the advocacy of 
the Bishop in his address. At that time the franchise 
was limited to the rectors of parishes. In the report 
we read, “Doubtless the ballot is a blessing, but doubt- 
less also it is not the only blessing known to man.” On 
“the undesirability of encouraging the spread of unat- 
tached churches and chapels,” the Committee does not 
think it wise to dwell, ‘for fear lest their doing so might 
be construed as an indirect censure of a most praise- 
worthy work of devout beneficence.” This matter, 
however, will not down. It is up again next year and 
receives the support of the clergy but is defeated by the 
laity. In 1883 it is finally passed in a form which tends 
to give unrestricted franchise to the clergy as such, in 
virtue of their orders. 

The diocese in convention had shown its appreciation 
of the work of Dr. Huntington in Prayer Book re- 

95 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


vision, by memorializing the General Convention in 
opposition to the attempt to revise the Prayer Book in 
the “Ratification,” as had been proposed, “instead of 
revising the Book in its rubrics, etc., as now inaugurated 
by General Convention’s wise provision.” ‘This me- 
morial was presented by a committee of which Phillips 
Brooks was chairman. The Convention of 1888, which 
proudly sends Dr. Huntington to General Convention 
with his “Book Annexed” in hand, was to be his last 
Massachusetts Convention. Before the next meeting 
he had accepted the call to New York, and in 1884 
Bishop Paddock in his address speaks this word of 
farewell: 

“Since we last met in council, the Church’s Triennial 
Synod has assembled in great strength and admirable 
spirit, and by manifold labors, wisdom, and charity has 
achieved a work more difficult, momentous, and valuable 
than any ever before wrought by a General Convention 
during the present century. It is a matter of honest 
pride, and shall go on record, that the original move- 
ment in Convention, out of which grew the Commission 
on Revision of the Prayer Book, was inaugurated by 
an honored and beloved Presbyter of this Diocese; and 
that, in all the three years’ labor preparatory to the 
Report, he was a very leader; while in the presentation 
and management of that wonderful Report in the 
House of Deputies, by that Presbyter, there was a 
modest and half-unconscious exhibition of sustained 
power of the highest sort, such as perhaps no other 
cause has ever called forth during our Church’s synod- 

96 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


ical history. All Saints’, Worcester, mourns its loss, 
-as does the entire Diocese, now that our beloved 
brother, who has resisted so many importunities, has 
felt it his duty to become the successor of the Assistant 
Bishop of New York, in that grandly powerful and in- 
fluential Parish of Grace Church.” 


The first General Convention which Dr. Huntington 
attended was, as has been said, that of 1871. As anew 
member, his part in that Convention was largely that 
of observer. The Convention atmosphere, as he had 
already discovered, was congenial to him. He was 
born with the parliamentary instinct, and he lost no 
time in acquiring a knowledge of the methods and pro- 
cedure of the Church’s legislative body. Moreover, he 
was keen in estimating its temper, and in judging how 
best to make it the servant of the great causes he had 
at heart. 

In his first two Conventions, that of 1871 and that 
of 1874, the one matter in connection with which Dr. 
Huntington came to the front was the subject of 
deaconesses. In connection with the establishment and 
development of this order of women workers, he was 
destined to hold a position of leadership all through his 
life. The subject was introduced into the Convention 
of 1871 by means of a Memorial on Sisterhoods. The 
resolution attached to this Memorial was to the effect 
that “provision should be made for the training of 
women in Training Houses, such women to work under 
the clergy, not to be bound under irrevocable vows, and 

97 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


to return to the House to be cared for when aged or 
disabled.” This was referred to the Committee on the 
State of the Church; and this Committee reported that 
while sisterhoods were a worthy and admirable institu- 
tion, they had, nevertheless, better be left to diocesan 
guidance, no concerted action on the part of the whole 
Church being possible. This was quite unsatisfactory 
to Dr. Spaulding, the promoter of the original move- 
ment, who then proposed a modification by which it 
should be recommended that “in every diocese where 
practicable, an institution for the training of women 
shall be established, to be under rules approved by the 
bishop, with full liberty to each woman to leave the 
order when she shall think fit, but assurance of support 
in age to those who persist.” It was at this point that 
Dr. Huntington brought in his resolution which passed 
the Convention, establishing a Joint Commission “to 
consider the expediency of reviving in this Church the 
primitive order of Deaconesses.” On the Commission 
thus created the mover of the resolution was the first- 
named presbyter. This action marks the beginning of 
a long struggle, lasting through many Conventions, for 
the attainment of some acceptable legislation regarding 
women workers. To churchmen of a later time it 
seems strange that any conflict was necessary. All 
were agreed as to the advisability of recognizing the 
ministry of women in the Church. It seemed to occur 
to no one that the obvious difficulties as to the vows of 
religious communities, and the free ministry of women 
attached to no order, might be overcome by considering 
98 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


the subjects separately. So far was this from being 
the case, that in 1874 when Dr. Huntington, reporting 
for the Commission, presented a canon, its title was, 
“Canon of Deaconesses or Sisters.” All through this 
canon, the phrase used is “deaconess or sister,” and it 
is provided that “the constitution, rules and books of 
devotion of any community shall have the sanction of 
the bishop, and that the books of devotion shall be in 
harmony with the usages of this church and the princi- 
ples of the Book of Common Prayer.” The action in 
1874 is to refer the proposed canon to a Joint Commis- 
sion of nine to report to the next Convention. In 1877, 
it is seen that the canon is impossible of adoption, and 
attempts are made to take the “form of admission” 
from the Church at large and leave it to each diocese, 
and to exclude from the action of the canon already 
existing sisterhoods. At first, the whole matter is in- 
definitely postponed; and then later in the same Con- 
vention a new Commission is appointed to try again. 
By 1880 the situation had become still more acute, and 
considerable heat developed between the two Houses. 
The deputies had at last wisely dropped all allusion to 
sisterhoods, in an attempt to establish the order of 
deaconesses. The bishops, however, insisted upon in- 
cluding regulation as to sisterhoods and amended the 
deputies’ canon. This amended canon the deputies 
laid on the table, and were thereupon accused of dis- 
respect by the bishops. Finally, the deputies voted 
non-concurrence, and the whole attempt was for the 
time being killed. It was not until 1889 that the canon 
99 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


on deaconesses was passed, and not until 1913 that the 
Church adopted a canon on Religious Communities. 
The canon adopted in 1889 was drafted by Dr. Hunt- 
ington, and under it he carried on his assiduous labors 
for the building up of an efficient order of deaconesses 
for the American Church. 

In the Convention of 1874, party feeling ran high, 
and a determination was manifested on the part of 
Evangelicals and Broad-churchmen to check the dan- 
gerous advances of ritualism. This determination was 
shown in the refusal of the House of Deputies to con- 
firm the election of Dr. Seymour as Bishop of Illinois. 
The friends of Dr. Huntington, because apparently of 
certain utterances of his in conversation, were anxious 
as to the stand he would take in the matter. Dr. John 
Cotton Smith wrote him that it seemed to him that it 
was certainly “a valid objection to a candidate for the 
episcopate that he holds a doctrine which has been de- 
clared unlawful.” “I could not,” he adds, “conscien- 
tiously be instrumental in raising a man to the episco- 
pate in regard to whose doctrinal statements it might 
be said that while they were ill-judged, perilous, etc., 
they did not subject him clearly to penal consequences. 
He should not be raised to the episcopate if he is so 
‘misunderstood’ as to make his consecration a source of — 
confusion to the Church.” When the test came, Dr. 
Huntington voted against confirmation, apparently on 
grounds of expediency rather than as a result of convic- 
tion regarding the doctrinal issue. Dr. Cornelius B. 
Smith writes him concerning his stand: “I was glad to 

100 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


see you vote against the confirmation of Professor Sey- 
mour. We may have reached the same conclusion by 
different methods, but I agreed with you at all events 
in the conclusion reached, and was not surprised at your 
manliness; but gratified to find we had thought alike as 
to the verdict. I am sincerely sorry for the Professor, 
being indebted to him for kindness on several occa- 
sions.” Four years later Dr. Seymour was consecrated 
Bishop of Springfield. 

Another manifestation of the determination in this 
Convention to check ritualism was the passage of a new 
section, to be added to the Canon on the Use of the 
Book of Common Prayer, providing for the bringing to 
book of any minister found introducing ceremonies or 
practices not ordained or authorized in that Book, and 
setting forth or symbolizing erroneous or doubtful doc- . 
trines. There were especially mentioned “the eleva- 
tion of the Elements in the Holy Communion in such 
manner as to expose them to the view of the people as 
objects towards which adoration is to be made,” and 
“any act of adoration of or towards the Elements in 
the Holy Communion, such as bowings, prostrations, 
or genuflections.” In the first draft of this canon, as 
it originated in the House of Deputies, the “use of In- 
cense” and “the placing, or carrying, or retaining a 
Crucifix in any part of the place of public worship” 
were also specified. At this time, there did not appear, 
as there does now, in the list of offenses for which a 
minister may be tried, the item of the violation of the 
rubrics. It would appear that when the canon referred 

101 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


to above was stricken from the canons, this item was 
added to the offenses, with a view to satisfying the fears 
of those opposed to ritualism. It was not seemingly 
realized that it might work in both, or any, direction, 
and was therefore bound to become from the start a 
dead letter. Nor was the further unfortunate circum- 
stance noted, that by this enactment rubrics are placed 
in the category of laws, where they do not belong. 

It was in his third Convention, that of 1877 , held in 
Boston, that Dr. Huntington received an appointment 
which was to signify much for his future labors in the 
Church at large. This was the appointment to the 
Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. As a 
member of this committee he was to exert great influ- 
ence, in connection with Prayer Book Revision, and 
later in connection with proposals for constitutional 
changes. At this very Convention the proposal for 
changing the name of the Church is for the first time 
introduced and referred to the above committee. The 
committee recommends that there be no change. This 
recommendation is sustained by the laity unanimously, 
and among the clergy there is only one vote in favor of 
the proposal, that of Wisconsin, under Dr. De Koven’s 
leadership. It was in 1877, also, that the proposal ap- 
peared for a Commission on the Revision of the Consti- 
tution. But it was too early for this suggestion to 
meet with favor. The Committee on Amendments to 
the Constitution were unanimous against it, and the 
committee was sustained. The same proposal was 
again before the committee in 1880, this time originat- 

102 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


ing with the Bishops, and again it was turned down. 
By this time the matter of Prayer Book Revision 
clearly had the right of way. It was the part of states- 
manship that it first should be disposed of. In 1883 
again he helps, as member of this same committee, to 
secure adverse action as to the omission of the words 
“Protestant Episcopal” in the title of the Church, and 
also to block a movement for the establishment of a 
Court of Appeal, a suggestion fraught with obvious 
dangers. 

By the time of the adjournment of this his fifth Con- 
vention, in 1883, largely through his masterly handling 
of the business of Prayer Book Revision, Dr. Hunting- 
ton had won an acknowledged place as the floor leader 
of the House of Deputies, and the designation of the 
“first presbyter in the Church” began to be bestowed 
upon him. It was with this great prestige in the 
Church at large, as well as with the record of his paro- 
chial and diocesan successes in Massachusetts, that he 
turned to take up his new work at Grace Church, New 
York. 


The success of the first ten years at All Saints, added 
to the prominence which he rapidly attained in General 
Convention, and the interest aroused by the publication 
of “The Church Idea,” inevitably drew the attention of 
parishes seeking rectors, colleges seeking presidents, 
and dioceses seeking Bishops to Dr. Huntington of 
Worcester. During the second decade of his stay in 
that city, many calls came to him. Already in 1870 he 

103 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


had been called to St. Mark’s Church in the Bowery 
in New York, a position which his friends had urged 
him to accept. Dr. Potter wrote: “There is no field 
for you like this city. Take time for your decision, but 
do not be beguiled by pleadings that must one day be 
disregarded. You are the Lord’s man, not Worces- 
ter’s, and I solemnly believe that the Lord calls you 
to New York.” Dr. Tiffany urged: “Let us have an 
accession among us of one man who believes in the 19th 
century as well as in the 16th or 5th . . . who believes 
really and practically in the Holy Ghost as the Spirit 
of the Living God now moving in the hearts of men as 
really as in ancient days.” Dr. Washburn said: ‘The 
Church wants you. If I mistake not, the time has 
come when our best men are longing for a larger and 
better churchmanship than they have had from the 
mock-Catholic party, which has held the keys, or their 
narrow opposites. I urge no selfish reasons. Be you 
assured, my friend, that this is a call from above.” He 
had given the matter careful thought, but the work in 
Worcester, which was beginning to show strength but 
where so much needed to be done, held him. He 
doubted also if his strength would be sufficient for the 
demands of the New York parish. In considering the 
call, he turned naturally to his revered and wise friend, 
Bishop Huntington, who, in writing to him, weighing 
the pros and cons, urges him on the whole to remain in 
Worcester. In his letter he says: “Where you are 
you deal largely with disbelief. In New York you 
would have to deal more with worldliness. The former 
104 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


appears to be more your specialty than the latter. 
Washburn wants you because of the Broad Church 
there is in you. But where you are that is of more 
service than it would be in New York. I hope there 
will not be any more of it and not much, if any, less of 
it in you anywhere. It has hurt Washburn, as to his 
influence for good. . . . If ambition were to be con- 
sulted,—I mean an honorable professional ambition, of 
course,—the chances strike me as about equal,—with a 
slight leaning, perhaps, to the Nov. Ebor side. But 
the money! As to the two Bishops, I am sorry to say 
you would not probably find much to choose. My 
prayer for you, my dear brother, is that you may not 
only be rightly guided by the Spirit, but be made 
tolerably clear and sure in your interpretation of that 
guiding.” 

In the spring of 1871, he was sought after by Hobart 
College for the presidency. The affairs of that insti- 
tution were in a somewhat parlous state, and yet there 
was good promise there of growth and efficiency under 
the right leader. He was told that “he was the one 
man who could bring the germ to fruition, who could 
be the making of the institution,” “the only man in the 
country, apparently, who was qualified for the select 
position of President.” He was convinced, however, 
that he was not possessed of the proper qualities for the 
task, and, moreover, he shrank from abandoning pas- 
toral interests, and felt that his work in Worcester was 
not accomplished; and he refused to consider the offer. 

In the spring of the next year, he was sounded for 

105 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


St. Luke’s, Philadelphia, but would give them no en- 
couragement, and later in the same year was asked by 
Bishop Stevens to take charge, for a year or two, at 
least, of Holy Trinity parish. The following year he 
was unanimously elected by the vestry rector of St. 
Luke’s, Germantown, and his acceptance was urged by 
Bishop Stevens; but he declined. He was quite willing 
to acknowledge that the opportunities offered were sig- 
nificant, but he exalted, as every earnest parish priest 
does, the importance of his own appointed task, and 
doubted if any opportunity could be superior to that of 
administering the only Episcopal church in the second 
city in the State of Massachusetts. 

In the year 1874 the calls became more numerous and 
pressing. He was sounded for the parish in Toledo, 
Ohio, with a salary of three thousand dollars and a 
“house carpeted throughout,” and for the Church of 
the Incarnation in New York; but he would not allow 
his name to be used. He was offered that summer the 
position of president of Kenyon and dean of Gambier, 
which Bishop Bedell strongly urged him to accept. In 
September, at the Convention called to elect a bishop 
for Illinois, he received a very large vote. A clerical] 
member of the Convention, a High-churchman, but op- 
posed to the extremists, declared that “in al] human 
probability Dr. Huntington would have been elected 
on the first ballot had not an ex-presbyter from 
Massachusetts said some unhandsome things touching 
his examination for orders.” As it was, he received 
twenty-three votes, Dr. Seymour, the successful candij- 

106 





THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


date, receiving twenty-seven. In regard to this out- 
come, Dr. Edward C. Porter, who had a few months 
before put Dr. Huntington’s name before the Conven- 
tion in Milwaukee as candidate for the bishopric of Wis- 
consin, wrote: “I cannot tell you what joy it would 
have given me if you could have been elected, and 
what sorrow I feel that Dr. Seymour is the future 
bishop. . . . I should regard his confirmation by the 
House of Bishops as very doubtful. In my judgment 
it would have been far better to have elected Dr. De 
Koven. He is the bravest, gentlest ritualist that I 
know.” | 

In December he was elected Bishop of Iowa. There 
had been a deadlock in the Convention in Iowa, the 
clergy having chosen Dr. Huntington, and the laity 
Dr. Potter, of Grace Church, New York. ‘The laity 
were not to be moved, and finally the clergy yielded, 
and Dr. Potter was elected, but immediately tele- 
graphed his declination, when the unadjourned Con- 
vention “with unanimous voice” turned to Dr. 
Huntington. Urgent letters were sent him, pressing 
the office upon him, and declaring that they had “found 
in him just the man needed.” 

A call to a bishopric demanded serious consideration. 
The parish became alarmed lest he might accept, and, 
in addition to many letters sent him by parishioners, 
the vestry passed resolutions urging him to remain. 
The Rev. Percy Browne wrote that the diocese could 
not spare him. ‘Your name,” he says, “means to us 
all strong, pure character, loyal churchmanship and 

107 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


liberality of spirit.” Mr. Sowden, a lay member of the 
Standing Committee and a High-churchman, wrote: 
“I beg you will try to consider your value and services 
to our church in this state, which perhaps you do not 
see as your friends see them. Your position in Worces- 
ter; your influence upon the Standing Committee; your 
large vote for Overseer of Harvard last year, and the 
certainty of your going upon that Board within a few 
years; and the work you may do there; and then, too, 
the acknowledged soundness of your churchmanship in 
a diocese where we are so often weakened by apologists 
among the best of our clergymen.” Dr. Potter, mean- 
time, wrote from New York, urging his acceptance, 
saying that he was “praying with all his might that he 
may go,” and that in Worcester he is engaged in ‘“‘the 
business of applying ten-ton trip-hammers to cracking 
nuts.” “I know,” he adds, “that your romantic devo- 
tion to Worcester would n’t let you leave it for any 
other parish, until you had built a Church and a Parish- 
building and a Rectory and a Hospital, and endowed 
them all, and secured your successor. But surely this 
is different. . . . As to its being ‘Western, —what is 
Iowa but a new East? You will command a circle of 
liberal friends for the diocese such as no other man 
could reach. Mrs. Potter’s Bourbonism of course de- 
murs, but that is because she thinks you won’t rest well 
in Iowa beds. She knows nothing about them.” 
After he had determined to remain in Worcester, Dr. 
A. V. G. Allen wrote of the great satisfaction he felt 
in the decision. “Probably you do not realize,” he 
108 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


said, “as your friends do, the gap that would have been 
created by your departure. I am sure the Club would 
greatly miss you. Most of its interest would be gone 
for me... . Your departure would have taken away 
the one man whom we were able to elect and were proud 
to regard as a representative of broad, intelligent, non- 
partisan churchmanship,—who could represent us in 
the Standing Committee, and in the Diocesan and Gen- 
eral Conventions. There are many other interests in 
the diocese which I regard you as essential to, and 
amongst them not least—our own Theological School.” 

The fact that All Saints’ Parish was then without 
a church, and that the plans for the new church were 
afoot, was a sufficient reason for his declining the honor. 
It is probable, however, that after the Convention of 
1874, the basis of his consistent and lifelong attitude of 
nolo episcopari was already being laid, and that his de- 
liberate choice for his life’s purpose of the presbyterate 
with its opportunity in the House of Deputies, albeit 
almost unconsciously to himself, was in the making. 

In 1876 an attempt was made to secure him for the 
rectorship of the Church of the Epiphany, Washing- 
ton, where he was the first and unanimous choice of the 
vestry. 

It was in 1877 that he was sought after for the presi- 
dency of Trinity; and for a brief period he appears to 
have leaned a little toward favorable consideration. 
The desire was strong to accede to Bishop Williams’s — 
wishes in the matter. In the end, however, certain con- 
siderations, in addition to his aversion to abandoning 

109 | 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


parish work which influenced him now as in the Hobart 
case, had weight. Just what these considerations were 
is not now clear. President Pyncheon’s presidency 
had just closed, and Dr. George Williamson Smith was 
the candidate finally chosen. In writing Bishop Wil- 
liams his final decision, Dr. Huntington says, “I will 
not repeat what I have already said with respect to the 
deep pain it causes me to disappoint you, to whom I 
owe so much, but were I at liberty to state in full all the 
reasons that have weighed with me in reaching this final 
decision, while you might still differ with me in opinion, 
you would not wonder at my choosing as I do.” 

In the same year there was an attempt to induce him 
to accept the rectorship of St. Stephen’s, Providence, 
where the rector had resigned, after what was spoken 
of as “a partial success,” not all having been “‘sympa- 
thetic with his somewhat extreme views.” Dr. Locke 
of Bristol, writing in reply to inquiries from his friend 
Huntington, says: “Providence is a city of wealth and 
fashion more than of intellectual life, though, of course, 
there is intellectual activity in the college and out of it, 
and great activity and energy in the town. Speaking 
for St. Stephen’s, I should say decidedly, ‘Come.’ 
And for yourself I strongly incline to think it is the 
place, if you are going to leave Worcester. Provi- 
dence is more like a great city. Yet it is not a great 
city, precisely.” 

In 1878 he was again sought after for the episcopate. 
This time it was the diocese of Springfield which 
sounded his attitude and intentions, Friends in Tlli- 

110 





THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


nois wrote him that it must now be true that the reasons 
he alleged for declining Iowa are non-existent, since 
the new church in Worcester had been consecrated. 
Dr. Huntington is obliged to acknowledge that this is 
a fact, but proceeds to give the first definite hint of the 
working of other motives in his unwillingness to con- 
sider a bishopric. “There are,” he says, “other reasons 
not of a strictly parochial character which incline me 
strongly to remain where I am.’ One might specu- 
late, were he so inclined, as to the difference it might 
have made in the development of the Church in the 
United States had men of the type of Dr. Huntington 
chosen as their seats of influence dioceses of the charac- 
ter of Iowa and Springfield rather than the large urban 
centers of the East. 

In the autumn of 1878 a determined effort was made 
to induce him to accept Christ Church, Cambridge, 
where the situation was felt to be in some respects des- 
perate, and where he was the one man to meet the 
needs of the case; but even aside from other reasons, 
he felt that the growing strength of St. John’s, the 
chapel of the Episcopal Theological School, was ren- 
dering impossible such a development of Christ Church 
as might attract him or demand his best efforts. The 
next year he was sounded for an important parish in 
St. Louis, and his name was mentioned in connection 
with the election of a bishop for Michigan, after Dr. 
McClosky’s deposition. In the next two years two 
other important parishes endeavored to induce him to 
leave Worcester, one being St. Stephen’s, Philadel- 

111 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


phia, where he declined an election. Meantime, the 
Vestry at All Saints, grateful for his persistent refusals 
and for his devotion to their parish and its work in the 
city, had passed resolutions,’ urging him to remain with 
them, and expressing their appreciation of him and his 
work, and were doubtless encouraged by his decision in 
a certain sense of security, which was to be shattered 
when finally, in 1883, the irresistible call to Grace 


Church came. 
1 In sending to the warden a formal statement of his decision to remain, 
Dr. Huntington added a note: “TI find myself happy in following the ad- 


vice given me by a certain little god-child of mine, as I held her in my 
arms on your door-step the other day,—‘Don’t go.” 


112 


LETTERS 


EL eT 


= << 


CARE aah 


da 
i 


5° y 


PAL Pee myer nt 
TALE Pris Ree ne ey 


\ y iPod! 
oi, 
ao 


yt h! 
Nita y 
hey 
j ay s 


Hae 


bey Nas 


iT 
hist ar 
Fi 





Worcester, July 3rd 1865. 
My Dear Miss Merenitu: * 

I cannot but be glad that I sent you my sermon since it 
called forth so kindly a response. I quite agree with you 
in thinking my “rock of difficulty,” humanly speaking, insur- 
mountable. But may not God, in his own time & way, use the 
united efforts of many workers to bring about a result no one 
of them could accomplish by himself alone? I sent out my 
little dove* in the hope that she might somewhere find the 
olive-branch. She will fail, no doubt, but as there is a God 
in Heaven I do believe that the troubled waters of controversy 
will one day subside, and the dry land appear. It must be 
confessed that the New York efforts have only brought us 
a fresh wave of inundation. 

American Catholicity is certainly a great way off when we, 
few as we are, cannot keep the peace in our own fold... . 


To F. E. A. 


Worcester, Nov. 20, 1866. 
Dear Frank: 

In what I said about “isolation,” I did not refer to that 
better companionship, the sense of which is always quickened 
by sacrifices made for conscience’ sake. To have intimated 
that you were in any lack of that would have been a gratuitous 
and unworthy assumption. I only thought that the moment 
when the angle of our mental divergence seemed greatest was 
a fitting one to choose to assure you that no odium theologicum 
was in my heart. 

And now as to the points you raise. I assent cheerfully 
to the proposition that all genuine friendship must rest upon a 
basis of mutual respect. In your judgment I violated this 


1 Miss Catherine K. Meredith of Philadelphia. 
2Sermon on “American Catholicity.” 


115 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


principle when I took upon myself alone the responsibility of 
terminating our correspondence, 

I am unable to concur in this judgment, and for the reason 
that when I apply the highest rule I know of, the golden one, 
I find myself perfectly willing to admit your right to do what 
I did. I stopped the correspondence in order to save the 
friendship, and because I was convinced that jf the corre- 
spondence continued, the friendship would die. You say I 
ought to have written and “proposed the plan” of a suspension. 
Supposing I had done so and you had not assented, would the 
equality of friendship have been vindicated by my carrying 
on a correspondence against my judgment and my wishes? 
If you reply that of course you should have assented, then 
I answer that you are magnifying a mere question of cere- 
mony, about which we differ, into one of right and wrong... . 

But no good can come of reviving the old causes of grief. 
I suppose that my inability to see the error into which you 
judge me to have fallen will render futile this my last attempt 
to revive a communion that was once sweet. “There is One 
that judgeth.” He will decide for us in a day of clearer light 
than this. Perhaps, after all, a renewal of the correspondence 
would not have helped us to understand each other any better 
than we have done. Our differences are so wide that we could 
not reasonably hope to reconcile them, and they are on such 
cardinal points that we could scarcely expect to be able to 
discuss them without warmth. 

Your religion, if I rightly understand your printed papers, 
is a pure Theism. Mine rests upon the fact of the Incarna- 
tion. You are an individualist. I am a Catholic. Your 
idea of the Kingdom of God is that of a “spiritual republic.” 
My idea of it is that it is what is called a Kingdom, with a 
King, and that King the historical person Jesus Christ, Son 
of God and Son of Man. To him whom you refuse to call 
Lord, I feel that I owe the entire allegiance of heart, mind 
and soul, and, therefore, I prefer to make self-forgetfulness 
rather than self-respect the highest duty of man. I draw 
this contrast, not disparagingly, for indeed I am aware that 


116 





THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


in your eyes the parallel puts me at a great disadvantage, 
but because with these differences it seems evident that we 
must be content to be one in heart, we certainly cannot here 
be one in head. 
With the old affection I am and shall always be yours, 
W. R. H. 


To F. E. A. 


Worcester, Mch. 15th, 1867. 
Dear Frank: 

I remember that my last letter was written in great weari- 
ness, and was but an imperfect return for yours. The throat 
trouble from which I was then suffering acutely still lingers 
on, and is now three months old. I am beginning to be dis- 
couraged with it, and half disposed to do what my friends are 
continually urging upon me, that is, go away for ten or twelve 
weeks to a warmer climate. My work here, however, is so 
interesting that I find it hard to leave it. We are just start- 
ing a Mission Chapel in a manufacturing suburb of the city, 
and I am afraid it may not be built unless I stay here to look 
after its interests. My plan is to have ultimately two or three 
such chapels dotted about in the less accessible parts of the 
town, and then have an assistant to help me carry them on. 
I have an idea that women can be made much more helpful in 
the work of the ministry than they are. Something similar to 
the Kaiserwerth Deaconesses would be very valuable in this 
country, although that particular title would hardly be ac- 
ceptable. In organizing Woman’s Work in the Church we 
want to combine the efficiency of the Roman “Orders” with 
English ideas of naturalness & personal freedom from vows 
etc. The problem is a difficult one, but inasmuch as God has 
solved a similar one in nature by combining mathematical 
accuracy of structure with external variety & diversity, I am 
not hopeless of success in dealing with it. Speaking of women, 
have you happened to fall in with “The Letters of Eugenie de 
Guerin”? It is a charming book, full of French vivacity, and 
with a most un-French depth of feeling in it. It is interest- 


117 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


ing to compare Eugenie, a Romanist, with Madame De Gas- 
parin, also a French woman but a Protestant, and to note 
their points of likeness & of difference. 

I have started a book-club in my parish and find it to work 
very well. At first I thought the thing was an invention of 
my own, but I have since heard of other “parish book clubs” 
& have been compelled to forego my claim to originality. I 
enclose one of the blanks, pasted in at the end of the book, to 
show how we work it. By having twenty-six members, just 
half the number of weeks in the year, and starting a book with 
each person, to be kept by him a fortnight, the thing keeps it- 
self going, like a great clock, for a twelve-month. We have, 
beside the books, some half dozen magazines constantly cir- 
culating. 

I suppose you have read the Harvard Memorial volumes. 
What terribly sad reading it is & yet how interesting. . . . 


To F. E. A. 


Worcester, Sept. 12th, °67. 
My Dear Frank: 

- - . Our interview at Commencement was not a bit satis- 
factory,—why, I do not quite know, but, somehow, we did not 
get at each other as we did before. When next we meet at 
Cambridge, if it is in the Summer, let us go down together to 
our two trees in Norton’s woods and renew old memories. 
Dear Frank, we ought to be very much to one another, the 
more so as we are led further and further into acquaintance- 
ship with grief. My heart goes out to you at this time very 
strongly. I do hope with all my heart that you will by and 
by come back, or as J should say, of course, forward to the 
Christian faith, and help in the defence with all the vigor you 
are now using in the attack, 

It seems so strange that we should be on different sides, 
But I did not mean to say this. And you will believe me that 
at this moment I say it with no purpose but that of showing 
you how much I long for your companionship in all things. 
I have no man friend who takes the place in my daily sym- 

118 





THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


pathies you used to take, nor can I have much hope of find- 
ing one. 

Your poem is beautiful. The first four verses I would 
gladly give to a mourning mother for her comfort. I could 
not use the last two in that way. They were too sad, Frank 
—too sad. Why should we think of the blessed place to which 
the little one has gone as a “vast inane”? Why not love to 
picture it rather as the warm and guarded fold? But I thank 
you for sending me so sweet a likeness of your baby. Here 
is a sonnet,—not the one you asked me to send, but another ; 
it will suit your feeling better than that. Believe me ever 

Lovingly yours, 
WILLIE. 


AMO vail Diss 


Worcester, Oct. 12th, 1868. 
Dear FRANK: 

_.. Ihave had a much longer vacation than usual this 
Summer, owing to alterations in our Church building that have 
made a suspension of services necessary. We were away fully 
two months, most of the time at Nahant. I think the sea shore 
does me no good, and I seldom return from it feeling any better 
than when I went to it, but it agrees with my wife & children 
so well that I am glad enough to go on their account. The 
Castle, as we call it, at Nahant is a tumble-down old place, 
the oldest house on the peninsula I believe, but my wife has 
been in the habit of summering it there ever since she was a 
little child, & is very much attached to every rock & tree about 
the spot. ... 

. . . The more I study the subject, the more fully I agree 
with you that there is no middle ground between the Catholic 
Creeds and pure humanitarianism. I give the allegiance of 
mind, heart & soul to the great truth of the Incarnation. 
How I wish you might receive it too. You will not think me 
‘“illiberal” if I pray that it may yet be so. 

We in All Saints parish are just now much engrossed in 
what will seem to you a very “concrete” subject, to wit, our 


119 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


return to the Church from which we have been banished nearly 
four months. It has been so altered that you would scarcely 
know it, if, indeed, you retain any memory at all of its in- 
side look. It is now one-half larger than it was before, and 
the walls & ceiling have been wholly recolored. A most beauti- 
ful memorial window has been placed in the Chancel. It rep- 
resents our Saviour as the Good Shepherd bringing back a 
lost sheep to the fold. The face is full of pity & compassion 
and I am sure will do something towards teaching my people 
the lesson of God’s loving kindness & tender mercy. Over the 
Chancel arch I have had placed the motto “There shall be one 
Fold and One Shepherd.” You and I are both filled with this 
aspiration after the unity of the human family, but how dif- 
ferently we apprehend the way & means! I am now & always 
affectionately 
Yours, 
Wm. R. Huntinecrton. 
To F. E. A. 


Worcester, Nov. 23rd, 1869. 
My Dear Franx: 

- . . I have read your argument against the observance of 
Sunday as “the Xian Sabbath” with much interest. Upon 
one point (for a wonder) I find that we are in agreement. J] 
refer to what you say about the entire dissociation of Ch. 
& State in this country. I am about writing on the same sub- 
ject in a little book on Xian Unity and shall take the same 
ground, although in the interest of an entirely different line 
of conclusions. Whether for good or evil our government has 
been organized on a principle of pure secularism, and unless 
we purpose revolution, we must accept the fact and work from 
the established basis. For myself I am glad to have it so. 
All I ask for Xianity is a “fair field & no favor.” The school 
question will come first, I think, the Sunday question next, and 
then the marriage question. The sharper the conflict the 
better, say I, for the Church. 

Affectionately yours, 
Wo. R. Huntinerton. 
120 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


To F. E. A. 


Worcester, Jan. 10: 1870. 
My Dear Frank: 

. . . The inhabitant of a dependent planet I am content 
to be a dependent spirit, and I glory in that servitude which 
seems to you so base. The more sincerely I can worship a 
Being greater than myself, the nearer do I approach the 
standard of true nobility. You may call this feminine re- 
ligion, but I honestly believe that in our relation to God we 
need the trustfulness and dependent love that are the dis- 
tinguishing traits of womanhood. 

Then too your method of explaining the growth and past 
influence of Christ’s religion seems to me (you know we have 
agreed to speak with perfect frankness) lamentably insufficient. 
To me the dogma of the Incarnation is—as you admit that 
upon a certain supposition it would be to you—the simplest 
rationale of Christian history. If the development hypothesis 
be true, and our Saviour was really only a great religious 
genius, the flower and fruit of past spiritual vegetation, why 
did not the race, especially when thus recruited in generative 
strength, bear in the course of another generation a still more 
glorious flower? Why this long gap of nigh two thousand 
years without a new and nobler Messiah? 

You put Socrates above Christ. Why has not the Socratic 
spirit begotten something better than Christianity? You 
answer perhaps that it has done so in finally making Free Re- 
ligion possible. Very well, if Free Religion succeeds in giv- 
ing us a type of character before which the world shall bow 
down in reverence as it has bowed down before the Xtian type, 
I pledge myself to become a Free Religionist. Nor am I the 
better satisfied with your explanation of Christ’s singular self- 
assertion so much at variance with his own doctrine of hu- 
mility. It may be a “bigot’s worn-out dilemma” but I must 
still think either that Jesus Christ was grossly inconsistent 
and untrue to his own teaching, in which case he is unworthy 
of our reverence, or else that he had a transcendent right to 
say “Come unto Me, Abide in Me.” The Scriptures, history, 

121 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


my own heart all become more intelligible to me when I admit 
the claim of Jesus Christ to my undivided allegiance. In 
choosing between Christianity and Free Religion I am choos- 
ing between the worship of the God-Man and the worship of 
the Man-God. I infinitely prefer the first. My dear Frank, 
however honestly we may agree to differ we cannot but hope 
for the day when we shall no longer differ but agree. Truth 
is one, and freedom through the truth is the only “liberty” 
worth having. May God lead us both into His Hphtae pats 

Your friend, 

W. R. Huntineron. 


Tovh sk. vA. 


Worcester, Mch. 10, °73. 
My Dear Franx: 

Although I have seemed to slight your kindness in leaving 
your letter of last September so long unanswered it has not 
been really so. 

Stunned as I was for the moment, it was quite impossible 
for me then to speak,' and even now after almost six months 
have passed I do not find a ready utterance for thoughts 
which I would gladly express to my old friend if I could. 
But of this be sure, that the wide gulf that sunders our fields 
of thought and action is not so wide that the voice cannot 
cross it. “Faithfulness?” and “loyalty” it seems are words 
that are still common to your religious vocabulary and mine. 
Let us thank God for that. | 

Should it please Him ever to send you such trouble as He 
has sent me, count upon my sympathy going out towards you 
as promptly and fully as yours has come to me. 

Affectionately yours, 
Wm. R. Huntinerton. 


To Dr. Horrin 


Worcester, Oct. 20, 1873. 
My Dear Dr. Horrm: 
I have been invited to preach on one of the Sunday evenings 
1 Mrs. Huntington died in September, 1872. 
122 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


of the coming Winter in the Chapel of Harvard College. I 
am desirous of accepting the invitation, but am unwilling to 
do so without asking permission of you as the Rector of the 
Parish within the limit of which the College Chapel stands. 
I make this request in compliance with the provisions of Canon 
12, Sect. VI, Title I of the Digest and because I would not 
willingly do anything discourteous towards yourself. An 
early answer will very much oblige 
Yours faithfully. 


To Dr. Horrin 


Worcester, Oct. 22, 73. 
My Dear Dr. Hoppin: 

Since receiving your letter I have written to Dr. Peabody 
naming the evening of Jan. 11th, the Ist S. after the Epiphany, 
as the time when I should wish to accept his invitation to 
preach in the College Chapel. 

I was sincerely glad to be put on my guard against inter- 
fering with any of your parochial arrangements. 

If when the time approaches it shall still be your desire 
to have me preach for you at Xt Church on the morning of 
the day named, it will give me much pleasure to do so. It is 
understood, however, that I accept your “condition” purely 
on grounds of courtesy and in no sense of canonical obligation, 
for I should be very reluctant to enter College a second time 
under conditions. | 

I take it for granted also that you are speaking humor- 
ously in what you say about your second ground for exacting 
a condition, since if “the good people of Cambridge” were dis- 
posed to draw so unwarrantable an inference from my preach- 
ing at the College Chapel as to suppose that I meditated going 
over to Unitarianism, I should not feel at all bound to allay 
their suspicions by giving them a sign. People who know me 
well enough to care to give a second thought to anything I 
may say or do know well that my “heart is with the Church.” 

I am, my dear Dr. Hoppin, 
Most truly yours. 
123 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To His CHILpREN 


New York, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 1873. 


My Dear Lirrie Cuitpren: 

This name printed in black is the name of the house where 
I am staying in New York. It is a stone house something 
like the one Dr. Clarke is building. There are five children 
in the family and that makes it very pleasant for me for it 
reminds me of my own four dear ones at home. ‘Two of these 
children are twins, little girls, and they are so like one an- 
other that I do not pretend to tell them apart. They sing 
at family prayers as we do, and this morning I told them 
about our hymns, and how Tesie lost her book, and about the 
cows eating the book this winter and learning to sing hymns 
too. 

Dr. Potter’s study is much larger and finer than mine at 
home; it has a blue ceiling like the chancel in the church and 
has great black walnut book-cases all around it covering the 
whole wall and leaving no room for pictures. But after all 
it is not half so sunny or cheerful as the dear study at 61 
Pearl Street, and I do not think I should like living in it at all. 
Just in front of this house is the famous street called Broad- 
way. It is full all the time of people and horses and carriages, 
and of noise too, and I find it very hard to get to sleep at 
night because of the rumbling that is kept up till long after 
midnight. 

I wish you could see some of the beautiful churches here and 
go to some of the services and hear the missionaries talk. J 
saw one of the four Indian boys yesterday, and could not help 
loving him he had such a sweet face. He took the gold medal 
at a school where there were a good many white boys for be- 
ing the best boy in the school. I hope I shall hear when I get 
home that you have all been good too, although I have no 
gold medals to give, 

Lovingly your 
Papa. 


124 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


To Dr. WasHsuRN 


Worcester, Dec. 29, 1873. 
My Dear Dr. Wasusurn: 

Pardon my delay in answering your Ictter of last week. An 
unusual pressure of parochial work,—unusual even for Xmas 
week, has made it impossible for me to give the matter the 
proper amount of thought. 

I find that the only Sunday I can possibly promise is Feb. 
8th (Sexagesima) and this only conditionally for I have agreed 
to preach for Mr. Jaggar in Phila. on the morning of that 
day. I think, however, that Mr. Jaggar could, if necessary, 
Jet me off from that engagement since it only grew out of 
the fact that I was to read a paper before the S. School 
Association on the following day, and expected to be in Phila. 
over Sunday for that purpose. Now I shall honestly be very 
glad if your committee will substitute someone in my place 
for I do not like undertaking formally to handle such themes 
as you have proposed to yourselves without a good deal more 
of preparation than I shall be able to give. Still, if it will 
embarrass the brethren to have me step out of an arranged 
plan, I will undertake (Jaggar consenting) to preach on any 
one of the following subjects, all of which are within the limits 
of the schedule. 

(a) Faith and The Faith. 

(b) The Name of God. 

(c) The Oneness of Scripture. 

(d) Law and Love in Physics and in Religion. 

I agree with you that the title ““Xtianity and Modern Opin- 
ion” is a little stale. It strikes me that either “The Diffi- 
culties of Faith” or “Christ and other Masters” or “The 
Perplexities of the Modern Mind,” would be more concrete, 
and therefore more taking. 


Worcester, Feb. 13: 1874. 
Dear Miss MERrEpitTH: 
I send you the extract feeling sure that it will seem less to 
you in the reading than it did in the hearing. 
125 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Nine-tenths of a sermon is in the preaching of it, which is 
the reason why we ministers are so loth to lend our manu- 
scripts, although, for that matter, I do not remember that I ever 
did, in point of fact, refuse to lend one. .. . 


To THE Rev. R. Heser Newton 


Princeton, Aug. 28th, 1874. 
Dear Newron: 


Not from any lack of appreciation of the honor you have 
done me in asking me to preach one of your proposed course 
of sermons, but because of objections that seem to me insuper- 
able, I feel constrained to decline the invitation. It seems due 
to you who have been kind enough to ask me to undertake so 
responsible a position as that of spokesman for a movement, 
that I should say frankly what these objections are. 

In the first place, then, I deprecate anything that tends 
to harden and emphasize the lines that already mark out the 
various schools of thought in the Church. The more shifting 
and uncertain these lines can be made and kept, the better, I 
think, for the interests of true religion. Antagonisms there 
must always be in the Church, but organized antagonisms 
ought as far as possible, at least so it strikes me, to be avoided. 
I gravely doubt whether the courses of sermons which from time 
to time are preached in our cities by representative men chosen 
from the various denominations, such as the famous Pitts St. 
Chapel Course, really do anything towards promoting Chris- 
tian unity. And for like reasons I doubt whether such a 
course as you mean to have, deeply interesting to the hearers 
as it undoubtedly must be, will tend to allay party feeling or 
to obliterate party lines. 

Again, if you do map out four distinct parties, and name 
them ritualistic, high, low and broad, I am a good deal in 
doubt where I properly belong, and therefore I question 
whether, granting your plan to be a good one, I could properly 
stand as an advocate for any one of the four divisions. What- 
ever I may have been called by others, I have never called my- 


126 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


self a Broad Churchman, pure and simple, for the reason 
that there are several features of what is commonly known 
as Broad Church theology, e. g. the contempt for the dogmatic 
principles and the unconcern for visible unity in the Church, 
with which I have no sympathy whatever. Still further, if 
what you want from your four preachers is ‘‘an interpreta- 
tion of the condition and its remedies” I fear I must answer 
with Canning’s needy knife-grinder, ‘‘Stay,—God bless you, 
I have none to tell, Sir.” Legislative remedies for our troubles 
I have but little faith in. That sounds, I know, like an utter- 
ance of superior piety, but I am sure you will not so mis- 
understand me. What the Episcopal Church needs is more 
of the graces of humility and brotherly love in the hearts of 
its members, and more especially of its clergy. If the Gen. 
Convention or the Church Congress can help us in this direc- 
tion, we may well say Te Deum. As for saying just what 
“measures” will right the ship, I confess myself at a loss. 
Again assuring you of my appreciation of your courtesy, 
and regretting that I cannot be of service to you, I am 
Most truly yours. 


To THE Rev. Percy Browne 


Worcester, Dec. 16: 1874. 
My Dear Browne: 

I cannot bring myself to “answer on a postal card” a letter 
that has come so closely home to my heart as yours has done. 
I was wondering why I did not hear from you, and have been 
saying to myself, Why is Browne the last to tell me what he 
thinks about it? You have spoken, now that you have spoken, 
very much to the point, and I value your words, not I hope 
only on account of the generous praise they convey (although 
it would be an affectation to deny that this also has done my 
heart good), but because you have definite advice to give, 
and give it. 

My dear Browne, I am glad that you believe in me as a 
genuine man, because ever since the first day I knew you I 


127 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


have taken you to be such, and have prized and loved you 
accordingly. 

Whatever my decision in this difficult crisis may be, rely 
on this that there is not “lawn” enough in all the world to 
make a curtain so dense as to hide me from my friends. 


To Bishop Haret 


Worcester, Jan. 27, 1875. 
My Dear Bisnop: | 

Why you, of all men living, should have been made the sub- 
ject of such heartless and such stupidly heartless misrepre- 
sentation as you were in the Kentucky and Ohio Conventions 
passes my finding out. In a small way I can sympathize with 
you, having been myself somewhat roughly treated in Illinois 
and Iowa, but I do not remember any of my opponents having 
brought forward objections to me so utterly devoid of all show 
of truth or reason as those brought against you by men, who it 
strikes me, must have been simply unscrupulous. 

You must forgive me, though, if I smiled a little, inwardly, 
upon reading in the “Ohio State Journal” that you were “a 
cold man who had no confiding friendship,” for I recalled a 
certain flagellation I once received on the score of undemon- 
strativeness. I little then thought that you would ever be 
paid in kind for breaking my head in that friendly way with 
your precious balm. 

But I am averse to jesting, for I fear you are feeling sad- 
dened and discouraged at the result,—not of course because 
your friends failed to carry their point, but because it looks 
as if the Church which sent you to the frontier were careless 
whether you live or die. Do not feel so, I beg; for there is 
no man in the whole church more loved or honored than you 
are to-day. Doubtless there is a meaning in it all, and God’s 
plan for you is wiser than ours for you was. How I wish 
you were here in my lonely study this cold winter’s night, that 
we might chat together lovingly of things human and divine 
as has been our wont. I have been having a Confirmation 
lecture to-night and feel as one is apt to after giving out 


128 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


thought, that it would be pleasant to take thought in, to re- 
load. With the assurance of my unfailing affection, I am 
Sincerely yours. 


Worcester, March Ist, 1875. 
My Dear Mr. Corrin: 

The question of Dr. Jaggar’s Confirmation as Bishop of 
S. Ohio is coming up in our Standing Committee next week, 
and as his friend I am desirous of meeting and answering any 
objection that may possibly be raised in connection with the 
letter to Dr. Cheney. To write to Dr. Jaggar himself, under 
the circumstances, would seem to me an impertinence, as it 
would look like demanding an explanation of him, a thing 
which no one has any right to require at his hands. I can- 
not see, however, that there is any impropriety in my asking 
you as Dr. Jaggar’s intimate friend, a question, the answer to 
which will settle my own mind and possibly aid in settling the 
minds of others. If even this has to you the look of an in- 
trusion, you can of course decline to reply, and I shall not 
take your refusal otherwise than kindly. The point upon 
which I desire light is this: Does Dr. Jaggar, as you suppose, 
still hold to the principle laid down in the letter to Dr. Cheney, 
namely, that any clergyman of our Church may, without dis- 
loyalty to his ordination vow and his promise of conformity, 
omit from the language of our formularies words or phrases 
to which he entertains a conscientious objection? ‘That Dr. 
Jaggar should have joined with other clergymen in sending 
a letter of sympathy to a friend whom they and he thought 
ill-used is assuredly nothing against him. So far as my 
knowledge of the Cheney case extends, I incline to the opinion 
that Dr. Cheney was harshly and violently treated, and per- 
haps even illegally sentenced. But it is one thing to express 
sympathy with a man who has been under trial, and quite an- 
other thing to endorse the act for which he was tried. My 
trouble with the letter is, as above stated, that it seems to 
lay down, in obscure and roundabout language, to be sure, 
but still unmistakably, a principle which strikes me as being ut- 


129 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


terly subversive of the first principles of law and order. If Dr. 
Cheney was only exercising an inherent right when he omitted 
passages in the service for Baptism which he did not like, who 
could fairly blame Dr. De Koven or Father Grafton were they 
to omit in the administration of the other Sacrament phrases 
repugnant to their consciences perhaps, as, for instance, the 
parenthesis, and they might plead that it was only a paren- 
thesis, “(by His one oblation of Himself once offered)? It 
will be a great relief to my mind to be assured that Dr. 
Jaggar does not at present hold the view which the letter 
seemed to enunciate, | 


To THE Rev. Percy Browne 


Worcester, March 8, 1875. 
My Dear Browne: 

I was sorry to hear in Boston today that Newton had ac- 
cepted the call to Newark. How we shall miss him at the 
Club! He will drop naturally into the corresponding associa- 
tion in New York, I suppose, but he will find that a very 
different thing, a much more staid and severe body and likely 
to look upon his livelinesses in the spirit in which a company 
of ancient tabbies would survey the indiscretions of a kitten. 

We had lively times, as you may imagine, in the Standing 
Committee this afternoon. Dr. Jaggar after a little discussion 
and citation of authorities, was unanimously confirmed, but 
there was a long debate over De Koven, ending in a vote four 
to two against him. You may wonder that I who fought De 
Koven in our Convention should have found it in my conscience 
to take his side at this juncture, but I did so on the ground 
that Standing Committees have no right to make the standard 
of orthodoxy narrower than it is made in the Prayer Book, 
and that a man who solemnly affirms his adherence to the 
formularies of the Church ought to be considered eligible to 
her high offices unless there be ground to doubt his truthful- 
ness (as in... case I thought there was). In a Massa- 
chusetts Convention I should again oppose Dr. De Koven’s 
election as strenuously as I did before, and on the same 


130 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


grounds, but it is another thing, as I conceive, to say that so 
far as in me lies I will prevent the Diocese of Illinois from 
having as bishop the man of its choice. In thus reasoning I 
may be wrong, and so the Committee thought me, but it will be 
a melancholy result of the rejection of Dr. De Koven if hence- 
forth none can be reckoned available for places of power in 
the Church who have not succeeded in mastering the difficult 
art of walking on the tight rope. No chance for you, my 
dear Browne, with your transcendental notions, nor for me 
with my dangerous “minimism” (have you read Newman’s 
Letter to the Duke of Norfolk? if not, do). Pardon the 
slovenly look of this note, my pen is bad, my ink thick and 
my hand tired, but I myself am as ever, 
Your attached friend. 


To tHE Rev. Percy Browne 


Worcester, Apr. 12: 1875. 
My Dear Browne: 

- - - If so intelligent & well-disposed a critic as yourself can 
see only self-contradiction in my course on the De Koven ques- 
tion, what am I to expect at the hands of the multitude? 
Happily it does n’t matter. 

But, surely, I must have expressed myself very clumsily in 
my previous letter not to have succeeded in making you see 
my main point, namely, that a member of a Standing Com. 
passing upon the papers of the Bishop-elect of another diocese, 
is shorn of powers that rightfully and properly belong to him 
when acting as a member of the Convention of his own diocese. 

I opposed the election of Dr. De K. as Bishop of Massa- 
chusetts not on the ground that he had no rightful habitat 
in the Prot. Ep. Church, but on the ground that it would be 
in the highest degree inexpedient & suicidal to make the setter- 
forth of such doctrine as his the official head of the Church 
in Mass. 

I fail to see the force of your argument that because I admit 
that the doctrine of Eucharistic Adoration has, as the Prayer 
Book now stands, a place among permitted opinions of the 


181 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Church, I am therefore bound, under pain of censure for in- 
consistency, not to oppose the election of a holder of this 
doctrine when he is put before me as a candidate. In 
our Mass. Convention, Dr. De K. was before me as a candidate, 
and I opposed him tooth & nail, as I should do again 
under the like circumstances. In Standing Com. Dr. De K. 
was not before me as a candidate but as a Bishop-elect, 
and I considered that I had no right to refuse to sign his testi- 
monials on doctrinal grounds unless I could prove that he was 
guilty of “error in religion,” in the sense of holding opinions 
actually & explicitly disallowed by the formularies of the 
Church. Any other interpretation of the phrase “error in 
religion” would inevitably lead, in my judgment, to this result, 
namely, that whenever a high-churchman should be chosen to 
the episcopate every low-churchman would feel bound to refuse 
to sign the testimonials and vice versa, for every H. C. believes 
every L. C. to be seriously in error upon some points of religion, 
and every L. C. believes the same of every H. C. Hence 
it follows that while Catholicity does not require of me as an 
elector to vote for a man to be my bishop (whose opinions I 
abhor) simply because he happens to be pushed by a set of 
eager supporters ; Catholicity does require of me that when the 
man has been elected I shall not withold consent to his con- 
secration; unless I can show his error to be an unlawful error. 
Q. E. D. In all this I may be mistaken, but my position is at 
least clear to my own mind. 


Worcester, Apl. 2, 1878. 
My Dear Miss Merepita :— 

. . . Lent is keeping us all very busy. For the first time 
since I have been in the ministry I have undertaken to keep 
up, through the season, a daily service with a daily lecture, or 
rather address, for “lecture” implies reading, and what I give 
is only a talk. It would be impossible if one had to choose 
a fresh subject every day, but by taking one of the books of 
the New Testament and moving along gradually, a few verses 
at a time, the thing becomes only a sort of protracted Bible 

132 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


Class. I have also been much interested this Lent in writing 
out my thoughts about the question of human destiny which 
has been so much discussed this Winter. I have been giving 
them to my congregation in the form of what the Scotchman 
in one of McDonald’s books calls a “‘coorse,”? a device which, 
however trying to hearers, is very helpful to preachers. . . . 


Worcester, Aug. 1, 1878. 
My Dear Miss MerepitTu: 

.. . No, I am not sorry that “our book” was published, 
although I suppose that my reputation for orthodoxy (if I 
ever had any) has been seriously damaged. ‘The enclosed note 
from the Rev. Edw. White, the author of the best book there 
is on the subject of “Conditional Immortality” will show you 
what eccentric form modern philanthropy sometimes takes. 
I don’t quite like the idea of having my book enjoy a forced 
circulation of this sort, but on the whole I concluded to let 
the “merchant prince” have his way. Perhaps some good may 
COME: OL Ite se 


Worcester, Aug. 9: 1878. 
My Dear Miss Merepitu: 

. . . Mr. Hunter’s pamphlet I have received and carefully 
read. How could you suppose for a moment that I should 
sympathize and agree with it? 

He has indeed an easy task in upsetting so careless a writer 
as worthy brother Mallock, but he lays himself open to very 
severe rejoinder. The particular passage you cite is an in- 
stance in point. You observe he introduces the interpreta- 
tion apologetically, as well he may considering what a pre- 
posterous gloss it is;—‘‘Some tell us” he says, and then goes 
on boldly to adopt and justify their startling opinion. Who 
these “some” are who “tell us” such an absurd thing I have 
been unable after considerable search to discover. I think 
they must be the same “some” who “tell us” that in the Collect 
for the Second S. in Advent the comma ought to be omitted 
after “hear them” and the word “read” pronounced as the 


133 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


participle and not as the verb, seeing that it cannot be 
supposed that the Church would sanction in one of her pray- 
ers the perilous habit of the reading of the Scriptures by the 
lay people themselves. With such sorts of handling the book 
of prayer deceitfully it is hard to have patience. And now 
as to the facts. The first exhortation in our service for the 
Holy Communion, is said by Proctor to have been modelled 
after a form contained in the “Consultations” of Abp. Her- 
mann one of the Continental reformers. The ‘‘Consultations,” 
whether in the Latin original or the English Translation is 
a very rare book, and I have not been able to get access to 
it; but I happen to have near me what is the next best thing, 
namely the First Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth, and here 
the language is explicit enough to satisfy, I should think, even 
Mr. Hunter. “I do intend, by God’s grace, to offer to all 
such as shall be godly disposed the most comfortable sacra- 
ment of the body and blood of Christ to be taken of them in 
the remembrance of his most faithful and glorious passion, 
by the which passion we have obtained the remission of our 
sins, and be made partakers of the Kingdom of heaven.” This 
would seem to settle the point; and I cannot imagine a con- 
troversialist who had had his attention called to these words, 
entertaining for a moment so monstrous a supposition as that 
of the “some” who “‘tell us.” But this is not all. Some years 
ago two well known High Church scholars published a Latin 
version of the English Bk. of Common Prayer under the title 
of Liber Precum Publicarum. Examining this at the point 
under dispute, I find the translation to be “per quam solam 
peccatorum remissionem” etc. Now the feminine relative 
“quam” cannot refer to the neuter “‘sacramentum,” but must 
refer to “passionem,” and this shows, plainly enough, that in 
the judgment. of Oxford High Churchmen, the common read- 
ing is the correct one. I have half a mind to embody these 
points in a note to the “‘Churchmen,” only I hate controversy, 
and this particular controversy (the Eucharistic one) is 
especially distasteful to me. 

These people who never weary of wrangling about the na- 


134 


THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


ture of the presence of Christ in the Holy Communion seem to 
me to come under Wordsworth’s biting reproach of the man 
who would 


“peep and botanize upon his mother’s grave.” 


There are other points in Mr. Hunter’s pamphlet which I 
would gladly overhaul, but I have not left myself room. The 
root fallacy of the whole document is that which you yourself 
point out, namely, the false supposition that the Pr. Book 
presents throughout one perfectly self-consistent and homo- 
geneous system of doctrine, without fleck or flaw anywhere. 


Worcester, 1878. 
My Dear Miss Merenitu: 

- .. Once more. Take the Xtian doctrine of prayer. 
How the philosophers struggle and labor with it! If it were 
necessary to understand all the arguments in defence of 
prayer that have been put forth within a twelve month, be- 
fore one could be taught to pray, the number of suppliants 
on the face of the earth would be few indeed. Praying must 
be left to the educated classes, exclusively, if, before men pray, 
they must know what is meant by such words as “causation,” 
“personal & impersonal force,” the “necessitarian hypothesis,” 
“evolution” and “positivism.” Of course, I do not mean to 
scoff at the philosophical and scientific treatment of these high 
themes. May the day be far off when any intelligent Xtian 
shall dread the most searching tests that can be devised by 
which to try the faith. But the question is, How are the 
common run of people (and the world, be it remembered, is 
made up of average men and women),—how are the common 
run of people to be taught what prayer is, and wherefore 
efficacious? 

When the disciples came to Jesus and asked Him, in a 
simple way, to teach them to pray; He did not enter into an 
elaborate defence of the doctrine of prayer. H did not under- 
take to prove how the granting of requests to weak & erring 
mortals could consist with the permanence and stability of 
natural law,—instead of doing this, or anything like this, He 


135 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


replied, “When ye pray say, Our Father.” In other words, 
He plants His doctrine of prayer directly on the parental re- 
lation, and leaves the thinkers to draw their own inference. 
I apprehend that after all the discussion about prayer is ended, 
and the dust of the controversy “lightly raised” is “lightly 
laid again,” we shall bring up at that view of the matter which 
is illustrated every time a child comes to his parent, and says, 
“May 1?” or “Shall I not?” Granting a God in Heaven,— 
and there can be no religion deserving of the name without this 
much of concession, granting a God in Heaven, and granting 
that He is our Father, how can we abridge His privilege of 
answering prayer without, by parity of reasoning, sinking 
Him below the level of the creatures He has made. 

A child brings to a father all sorts of requests, reasonable & 
unreasonable, good, bad & indifferent. It is for the father 
to discriminate. We cannot possibly get any nearer than this 
to understanding the philosophy of prayer. The child teaches 
us all there is to be learned about it. As he brings all his 
wishes, all his complaints, all his troubles, all his confessions, 
all his requests to a parent in whose ability to care for him 
he has a too unbounded confidence, so does the humble believer 
bring all that is in his heart, his wants, his anxieties, his in- 
tercessions, his sins, to Him in whom there can be no confidence 
too boundless, and says, “Heavenly Father, this is my prayer. 
Answer it as shall seem best to thee.” 


Worcester, Sept. 9, 1878. 
My Dear Miss MErepITH: 

_.. And now I find myself settled down to another year 
of parish life. It all looked very formidable as seen from the 
quiet of the wilderness—this round of multifarious duties ; 
for a parish, it must be confessed, does not readily 


“orb into the perfect star 
We saw not when we walked therein,” 


but much the contrary. By degrees, however, one gets into 
harness, and in the face of the resignation of seven,—no nine 
Sunday School teachers,—I am calm, if not hopeful. 


136 


DR. HUNTINGTON 


* 


i 


IN THE STUDY 


AT ALL 





SAINT 





or hh 
ete a 
“ar 
res) 
we j 
’ AR 
‘ 

y 


— 


ooh 






s 
7. 


> a7 F, 
4 = 
rl are 

r] 2 F at 

' oo ee te 

a reef 

ad 7 (a> 

1 { oe - 

, . 
by “ve 
“. <n ee 

omy See 

elthe is , oa 

fc = 

: g An we el 

5= Ow 7 

, & . r 

5 ~— 

J ~~ < - ; 

< 7 
oer, 
F i, 
~ >. x 
A > 
‘ 


- 
a 


an 
on, Ta- 
AES 


ge 


." 


Piok 


are 


o> + 









S. ey 7 
i ¥ : 


oe ) 





THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH 


You ask about my other points of objections to the argu- 
ment of the Hunter pamphlet. Briefly they are these, his 
ambiguous handling of the word “body,” in one breath using 
it in a sense which it is hard not to call materialistic, and in 
the next identifying it with the “grace” of the catechism. 
Again he as much as concedes (p. 26) that our difference with 
Rome is a merely verbal one so far as transubstantiation is 
concerned, while at the same time quoting as authorities on 
his side of the question men who gave their bodies to be burned 
rather than acknowledge that the distinction was one without 
a difference. His whole treatment of the question of con- 
fession seems to me an unworthy one, a piece of special plead- 
ing. He knows perfectly well the place which the sacrament 
of penance occupies in the Roman system, and yet he rattles 
on as if there were nothing more in auricular confession than 
the mere giving a minister one’s confidence. Certainly this 
pamphleteer deserves a place in the calender of saints of what 
Mr. Hutton has called the hard Church... . 


137 


Vi 


REVISING THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


ton began to entertain the thought of a formal 

Prayer Book revision by the Church. His early 
interest in Church unity, and his convictions as to the 
important part which the Episcopal Church might play 
in that movement, must have speedily led him to an 
appreciation of the need for revision. Moreover, from 
the time he entered the General Convention, he became 
more clearly aware than he had been before of the de- 
mand for revision from various quarters within the 
church. 

Indications of a felt need for changes were shown by 
resolutions introduced from time to time for minor 
alterations. In 1874 modest attempts at revision of 
rubrics were made, but all resolutions were lost, though 
a resolution as to the propriety of considering Morning 
Prayer, Litany, and Holy Communion separable serv- 
ices was carried. At that same Convention, a resolu- 
tion in regard to regulating unauthorized and “Roman- 
izing” practices was passed, on a concurrent vote, by 
very large majorities. 

By 1877, when the Convention met in Boston, rest- 
lessness as to the Lectionary had become insistent. 

138 


|: is difficult to determine just when Dr. Hunting- 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


Special tables for Lent were permitted. It was de- 
sired that the new use just set forth in England be 
allowed until next Convention. Finally the whole sub- 
ject was referred to a Commission of seven bishops and 
seven clergymen, of whom Dr. Huntington was one. 
Later, with the thought apparently that after all the 
listeners as well as the readers ought to have a voice in 
the matter of lessons, three laymen were added to this 
commission. 

At the same Convention, sundry suggestions for 
amendment appeared. These included a resolution for 
a new suffrage in the Litany for “sending forth laborers 
unto the harvest”; an attempt to secure relief in the 
Baptismal Office by permission to omit the exhortation 
after the baptism, and to substitute for the following 
thanksgiving the Easter Even collect, thus securing 
avoidance in two places of the word “regenerate”; and 
a resolution to substitute for the Prayer for the Presi- 
dent the original suggestion of 1789, in place of which 
the adaptation of the Prayer for the King was finally 
chosen. This form reads, after the familiar opening, 
“to give to the President of the United States and all 
others in authority grace, wisdom and understanding 
to execute justice and to maintain truth, that the people 
may lead quiet and peaceable lives in godliness and hon- 
esty.” ‘The frequency and variety of the suggestions 
doubtless gave the watchful Dr. Huntington hope that 
the Church might be willing to consider the plan, upon 
which by this time he had set his heart, of a comprehen- 
sive revision. 

139 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Furthermore, Dr. Huntington had been appointed 
at this Convention a member of the important Commit- 
tee on Amendments to the Constitution, and into this 
committee he carried the fight for a real revision, and 
won his battle there and subsequently in Convention. 
The question was whether the committee would approve 
an amendment proposed to the Constitution by which 
its provision as to Prayer Book revision should be 
altered by adding the words, “Provided, 'That the Gen- 
eral Convention may by canon arrange and set forth a 
shortened form of Morning and Evening Prayer to be 
compiled wholly from the Book of Common Prayer.” 
The committee divided five to four, the majority, of 
whom Dr. Huntington was one, being against. And 
in the House the majority won. Dr. Huntington saw 
clearly that the device was too partial and limited, and 
would in the end defeat the cause of real and thorough- 
going revision, and a revision which should have the 
whole-hearted support of the Church and be accom- 
plished on its traditional and well-guarded constitu- 
tional lines. 

It was undoubtedly the fact that he was in his home 
city, and felt that the atmosphere was congenial and 
sympathetic with his views, which finally led him to in- 
troduce in Boston a resolution for a general revision of 
the book. It is probable that he took the step with con- 
siderable hesitation, and with misgivings as to the out- 
come. He had to sustain him in his determination the 
manifest interest in many quarters in revision, and the 
victory in the battle over the proposed Constitutional 

140 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


Amendment. The form of the resolution he then of- 
fered is interesting in view of the action which was 
taken at the next Convention. It reads as follows: 
“Resolved, that a Joint Commission of seven bishops, 
seven presbyters and seven laymen (the presbyters and 
laymen to be chosen by ballot in this house) be ap- 
pointed to consider and report what changes, if any, 
are needed in the rubrics of the Book of Common 
Prayer, in order to remove existing difficulties of inter- 
pretation, to amend the Lectionary, and to provide by 
abbreviation or otherwise for the better adaptation of 
the services of the Church to the wants of all sorts and 
conditions of men.” The provision for election by bal- 
lot, rather than for appointment, was with a view ap- 
parently of winning more favor for the measure. The 
resolution was voted down. There was, however, 
finally passed a suggested amendment of the general 
rubric which provided for shortening Morning and 
Evening Prayer, for treating the three services of 
_ Morning Prayer, Litany, and Holy Communion as dis- 
tinct services, and for a short form to be used with a 
sermon. A resolution offered at this Convention by 
Dr. Huntington for the appointment of a Commission 
on Anthems was also passed. The anthems to be 
selected were to be “in the words of Holy Scripture, or 
in the words of the Prayer Book of the Church of Eng- 
land, and were to become an appendix to the Hymnal.” 
It would seem that it was felt that in this way some en- 
richment might indirectly be secured. 

When this Convention closed, Dr. Huntington was 

141 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


undoubtedly discouraged concerning the prospects for 
revision. For even a year later, when preaching the 
annual sermon before the Bishop White Prayer Book 
Society, in stating his conviction that the “only honest 
way out of our embarrassments will some day or other 
be found in a careful, loving, fair-minded revision of 
the formularies,” he adds that he dares not believe that 
such revision will come very soon. ‘The sermon was, 
nevertheless, throughout a plea for revision, and a care- 
ful statement of the faith that was in him. In it, he de- 
clares that if we are to be true to the spirit of the 
reformers who framed our first English book, we must 
be bold in our demands for revision now, “emulating 
the courageous foresight of those who dared to plant 
themselves firmly on the principle of Common prayer.” 
He pleads that “timid counsels” shall not be allowed to 
prevent adapting the system to the needs of society, that 
“the Church may cease to wear the dimensions of a sect, 
and become the chosen home of a great people.” “It is 
a time,” he concludes, “of reconstruction in the state, so- 
cial life is taking on new forms, a great war has come to 
an end, all things are fluent.” 

During the next two years, before the Convention of 
1880 met, there may have been some things to en- 
courage a belief that the Church was making ready to 
undertake revision, but not many indications were at 
hand. Dr. Huntington decided to present a resolution 
for revision, just as he had in 1877, but not so much 
with the idea of securing its passage as with a convic- 
tion that it would be well to keep the plan before the 

142 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


Church. In the speech which he made just before the 
vote on the resolution, he began: “When, Mr. Presi- 
dent, a few days ago I ventured to offer this resolu- 
tion, I did so, I will not say in fear and trembling, but 
certainly with a very slender expectation that the meas- 
ure would receive the immediate and hearty sanction of 
this House. I was convinced that the proper time had 
come to make the proposition, to plant the seed, to start 
the idea upon its travels; but that the time had come 
when such a suggestion could be favorably acted upon 
with anything approaching unanimity I scarcely dared 
to hope.” He went on to tell of the things which had 
happened in Convention to give him “a cheerful cour- 
age.” Such were the unanimous sanctioning of the 
new Lectionary, favorable action in the Bishops on some 
matters of revision, and approval indicated of shortened 
services. He reassured the Convention by showing 
how the proposed commission because it was large would 
possess wideness of view, and because it had time would 
be freed from perils of haste. It had no power anyway 
except to recommend. 'The purpose was not doctrinal 
change but liturgical enrichment. He indicated what 
this would mean: the bringing back into the worship of 
the Church of the beautiful hymns of the Gospel; the 
better accentuation of the seasons of the Christian Year, 
“a thing which lay close to the heart of Dr. Muhlen- 
burg”; the provision of an alternate form for Evening 
Prayer; and new collects and prayers. At the end he 
stressed the timeliness. The thought of the opening of 
a new century of the Church’s life might be considered 
143 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


sentimental. But the question is really practical. 
There are many pressing needs of the new era to be 
met. In his peroration he appealed to the Church to 
take cognizance of the demands of the time and to re- 
alize the greatness of its responsibility. On a half- 
sheet of paper containing notes of this speech, and 
marked “Brief, Oct. 25,” there stand written against 
the suggestion for the peroration the words “flood- 
gates.’ On the note of the Church’s responsibility he 
let loose his oratory. And the Church rose to its op- 
portunity, and the resolution was passed by substantial 
majorities in both orders, the vote of the clergy being, 
however, larger than that of the laity, conservatism 
among the laymen, as is usual in such matters, bulking 
larger than among the clergy. 

The resolution, which had been carefully framed, was 
a generous resolution, and was in these words: “That 
a Joint Committee to consist of seven Bishops, seven 
Presbyters and seven Laymen be appointed to consider 
and to report to the next General Convention whether, 
in view of the fact that this Church is soon to enter upon 
the second century of its organized existence in this 
country, the changed conditions of the national life do 
not demand certain alterations in the Book of Common 
Prayer in the direction of liturgical enrichment and in- 
creased flexibility of use.” On a scrap of paper which 
contains the first draft of this resolution appear certain 
significant changes in phraseology which testify to the 
author’s instinctive feeling for the right word, and for 
the avoidance of the phrase which might fail in appeal 

144 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


or might excite opposition. The original “certain 
changes” is made “certain alterations,” and the word 
“rubrical” before “flexibility of use” is erased. 

Immediately after the closing services, the committee 
was called to order, October 27, in Holy Trinity 
Church, and proceeded to elect Dr. Huntington its sec- 
retary and to adjourn to meet at the call of the chair- 
man, Bishop Williams. 

In a book, marked “Personal and Private” and kept 
by Dr. Huntington for the next three years as a sort 
of diary of things pertaining to the Commission’s work, 
the record of this meeting was inserted, and immedi- 
ately beneath it appears this note: 


Oct. 27. Same evening, walking down from the Church, 
bought this book at Brentano’s, Union Square, and made the 
above entries before retiring for the night. Laus Deo. 


Thus was inaugurated that process of revision of the 
American Prayer Book, on which Dr. Huntington had 
set his heart, and for which he had scarcely dared to 
hope, a process which reached a first stage of comple- 
tion in 1892, but which is still going on. 

Dr. Huntington’s first act after returning home was 
to write to Bishop Williams, suggesting plans for the 
prosecution of the work, and outlining an “agenda” 
for the next meeting of the new Commission, and for 
subdivision of the work into committees. In this letter 
he says: 

“T cannot tell how it looks to you, but it does seem 
to me that never since the days of White and Seabury 

145 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


has such an opportunity been vouchsafed to the Church. 
We certainly do not want to Americanize the Prayer 
Book in any vulgar sense, but at the same time we can- 
not forget that it is in America we live, and to Ameri- 
cans that we minister. To bring the worship of the 
Church closer home to the hearts of ‘this great and 
understanding people’ by making it more attractive to 
their imaginations and more adaptable to their needs is a 
work to which we may well thank God for having called 
us. The Committee from your House would seem to 
be as good as it could possibly have been made. Our 
contingent has more ups and downs of quality,—but 
may God bless us every one, and help us in the solemn 
task.” He suggests, “in view of the seriousness of our 
undertaking and our great need of unanimity in the 
prosecution of it, the first gathering together should be 
prefaced by the Holy Communion.” 

That the leadership of Dr. Huntington in the matter 
was generally recognized is testified to by the fact that 
the columns of the “Churchman,” “Living Church,” 
and “Guardian” were immediately opened to him. He 
declined the offers of the “Guardian” and “Living 
Church,” giving as his reasons his “duties to his col- 
leagues on the Commission and the undesirability of 
having any one person too much identified with the — 
movement in the public mind.” He allowed the reprint 
in the “Churchman” of the sermon preached two years 
before in Philadelphia before the Bishop White So- 
ciety, on the “Permanent and Variable Characteristics 
of the Prayer Book.” He also promised the “Church 

146 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


Review” an article on “The Proposed Liturgical Re- 
view of the Book of Common Prayer.” 

From this time on, for the next three years, Dr. 
Huntington gave himself unremittingly to the task. 
Almost every day shows an entry of some work done, 
either in the study of forms and the arranging of sug- 
gestions or in correspondence with members of the com- 
mission. He kept in touch with the work of the three 
subcommittees. He traveled to New York, Philadel- 
phia, and New Haven for conference with committee 
members. 3 

At the first meeting of the commission for the organ- 
izing of its activities, a meeting which was “charac- 
terized,” the secretary records, “by entire harmony,” 
two self-denying ordinances were passed as the meet- 
ing’s first business. ‘These resolutions were adopted 
not only as a guide to the commission but as an assur- 
ance to the Church, and were immediately sent to the 
Church press. They were as follows: 


Resolved: That this Committee asserts at the outset its 
conviction that no alterations should be made touching either 
statements or standards of doctrine in the Book of Common 
Prayer. 

Resolved: That this Committee in all its suggestions and 
acts be guided by those principles of liturgical construction 
and ritual use which have guided the compilation and amend- 
ments of the Book of Common Prayer and made it what it is. 


In April, 1881, the promised article appeared in the 
“Church Review” under the title, “Revision of the 
American Common Prayer.” In this article Dr. 

147 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Huntington discussed at length the principles which he 
conceived to be vital in the work, and presented some 
of the details of revision for which he hoped. ‘The tem- 
per of the article was admirable and its spirit concilia- 
tory. ‘There was frank recognition of difficulties and 
of the rights of the conservative attitude, and a sweet 
reasonableness in the advocacy of needed changes; and 
it doubtless accomplished much for the cause among 
thoughtful people. He emphasized the timeliness of 
the work as he did in his Convention speech, a timeli- 
ness based upon the needs of a new era. The needs of 
the people of the land had been brought home to him 
through his own experiences in such centers as Lowell 
and Worcester. The new century may seem an arbi- 
trary sentimental division to some, but after all a cen- 
tury covers the range of three generations, and a 
generation is a natural, not an arbitrary division. 
“What the grandfather practises the son criticizes and 
the grandson amends.” Moreover, the timeliness is 
emphasized by the pacific condition of the Church; 
by the interest in revision in England, as well as 
here; by the looking to us in matters of worship of 
those without, whom we must sympathetically meet, 
recognizing in it a token of better things to come, and 
of an approaching “consolation of Israel’; and still fur- 
ther by the rich fruits of liturgical revision of the past 
fifty years. 

Under the head of “Desiderata” in this article, he 
marshals the changes which he thinks might be made in 
the Prayer Book. Many of these are familiar now to 

148 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


users of the book from the fact that they found a place 
in the accomplished revision of 1892. There are other 
suggestions, to which he gave much thought, which for 
the most part failed of adoption. Such are the plan 
for Week-day and Holy Day Matins and Evensong, 
the providing of collects and prayers for various occa- 
sions, and the inclusion of the Beatitudes in the litur- 
gical formularies of the Church. In the course of his 
recommendations he makes some wise generalizations. 
He reminds his readers that “excision may, under con- 
ceivable circumstances, be enrichment’; that “it is pos- 
sible in liturgics so to employ the principle of repetition 
that no wearying sense of sameness will be conveyed, 
and again it is possible so to mismanage it as to trans- 
form worship into something little better than a ‘slow 
mechanic exercise.’”” He pleads for that wise provi- 
sion of variety which shall ‘add just that little incre- 
ment to the Church’s power of traction that in many 
instances would avail to change ‘I cannot go to church 
this morning’ into ‘I cannot stay away.” He recog- 
nizes that so far as additional offices are concerned, if 
they are to make their way, there must be allowed the 
fullest possible play to the principle of “local option,” 
and that the greatest care must be taken to have the in- 
definite “an” rather than the definite “the” prefixed to 
every such office. He is frank and conciliatory in the 
matter of the difficulties which surround the present 
undertaking. He is aware of the wide-spread _hesi- 
tancy about touching a heritage so precious. He ac- 
knowledges the binding power of the book as it stands. 
149 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


“The men of 1789 had us in their power, even as the 
men of 1549 had had both them and us. In every crea- 
tive epoch many things are settled by which unborn 
generations will be bound.” Yet “it ought not to be 
absolutely impossible to alter a national hand-book of 
worship,” though “it is well that it should be all but 
impossible to do so.” The national life has changed be- 
yond the possible forecast of the shrewd. and far-seeing 
William White and his coadjutors, and the book must, 
in measure, change too. Moreover, a piecemeal revi- 
sion is going on, and the “driblet method of revision,” 
with its peril of frequent changes, is confessedly one of 
‘Gntrinsic weakness. There is again the obvious diffi- 
culty of making any change without danger of doc- 
trinal implication. There are parts of the book where 
change seems to be loudly called for, but where, be- 
cause change would mean touching statements or stand- 
ards of doctrine, no change can be made. Such are 
parts of the Baptismal office, the opening invocations of 
the Litany, and in the Catechism, “that sad crux infan- 
twm the answer to the question, ‘What desirest thou of 
God in this prayer?’”’ But the limitations of “enrich- 
ment” and “flexibility” must be trusted. There is the 
difficulty in the minds of some inherent in attempting 
revision of the American book independently of Eng- 
land, and the possibility that the Concordat will have to 
be reckoned with. More important is the difficulty as 
to language. The question is “how to handle without 
harming the sentences in which English religion phrased 
itself when English language was fresher and more 
150 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


fluent than it can ever be again.” Here, however, it 
is to be remembered that “the alterations most likely 
to find favor with the reviewers are such as will enrich 
by restoring lost excellencies, rather than by introduc- 
ing forms fashioned on a modern anvil.” Moreover, 
“there is nothing, after all, supernatural about the Eng- 
lish of the Prayer Book. Cranmer and his associates 
were not inspired.”’ And, after all, “the prose of the 
nineteenth century is vastly superior to eighteenth cen- 
tury style, of which the American book has no incon- 
siderable specimens, and many worse things might 
happen to the Prayer Book than that the nineteenth 
century should leave its impress upon the pages.” 

In 1882, Dr. Huntington caused to be privately 
printed in Worcester “Materia Ritualis,” which was 
designated an appendix to the article in the “American 
Church Review.” It embodies the suggestions of the 
article and is intended to illustrate the principles set 
forth in it. It was intended for his fellow-members in 
the joint committee, upon whom the compiler disclaims 
any wish unduly to urge his own preferences. “He 
trusts that it may, at least, serve as an encouragement 
to his colleagues to cast, of their abundance, into the 
common treasury, other and worthier offerings to the 
same end.” It contained the forms of Morning Prayer 
and Evening Prayer, in accordance with his sugges- 
tions of amendment, and the Week-day and Holy Day 
forms for Matins and Evensong which he so strongly 
advocated. It even contained certain changes, regard- 
ing which he had no hope of acceptance, because of 

151 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


their touch on doctrine, like the amended Litany Invo- 
cations, the third of which is printed, ““O God, the Holy 
Ghost, sanctifier of the faithful; have mercy,’ etc., and 
the fourth, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty; 
have mercy,” etc. The chief value, however, of this 
rare pamphlet rests in the fact that it reveals Dr. Hunt- 
ington’s fine workmanship, and the sources of certain 
cento forms of collects and prayers derived from an- 
cient sources, several of which have now become famil- 
iar to us through constant use, and that it contains 
some prayers of his own writing of recognized help- 
fulness. 

The work of the joint committee was conducted 
almost wholly by the subcommittees and through cor- 
respondence. In the three years there were only three 
groups of sessions held by the entire committee. 

Throughout the time that the work was going on in 
the commission and its committees, Dr. Huntington 
pursued on his own account lines of liturgical study 
which he hoped might prove helpful in the final result. 
He gave much thought to a study of collects, and of the 
collect form, and framed a table of the changes which 
collects of the Prayer Book had passed through in the 
course of previous revisions. This study convinced 
him that ‘change in liturgical matters 1s well, when 
gradually made by careful and loving hands, and that 
even in the case of the collect, that feature of the 
Prayer Book which more than any other challenges the 
admiration of all English-speaking people, and which 
Macaulay compared in its perfection of form with Miul- 

152 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


ton’s sonnets, almost every change introduced has been 
for the better.” 

He also busied himself with framing those new offices 
which he felt to be needed in some cases for special 
occasions, or which should be of a general character, 
and fitted to supplement the chief services of the book. 
Of such offices one in particular claimed his attention. 
This was an Office of the Beatitudes. When the litur- 
gical use of the Beatitudes was first suggested, it was 
proposed to incorporate them into the Service of the 
Holy Communion as a permissive variant for the Ten 
Commandments. This idea did not meet with general 
approval, and they appeared finally in the commission’s 
report as a separate service, to be placed after Evening 
Prayer, in connection with which it might be used. In 
one of the note-books occur these words regarding the 
matter: “Instead of making St. Chrysostom do duty 
thrice in the same words, a thing the ‘Golden-mouthed’ 
never would have dreamed of doing in the flesh, why not 
confine the collect to its special place in the Morning 
Prayer, and honor his memory by re-introducing a 
usage, associated in the history of liturgics with his 
name and his name only, namely, the responsive use 
of the Beatitudes as a feature of public worship.” The 
actual form in which the Beatitudes were to appear 
went through several variations. In the “Materia 
Ritualis” they are arranged in a Holy Day Evensong 
to be read responsively, the first to be said by the minis- 
ter, the second by the people, and so on. 'Then, because 
doubtless of the fact that they had at first been sug- 

1538 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


gested as an alternate to the Commandments, the Kyrie 
Eleison was made the response, with the words added, 
“and be it unto thy servants according to thy word.” 
And this was the form which appeared in the report. 
It was not, however, satisfactory to Dr. Huntington, 
and a few months before the Convention, in a letter to 
Bishop Lay, he urged the adoption of another response. 
He writes: “After giving a great deal of time and 
thought to the response to the Beatitudes (more, in 
fact, than I have given to any single point connected 
with this whole work) I have finally reached a conclu- 
sion in favor of one that will probably, at first sight, 
strike you oddly, but which, on examination, may seem 
to you as it does to me to possess peculiar advantages. 
It is this. ‘Amen. Be it unto thy servants, Lord, ac- 
cording to thy word.’ For the use of the emphatic 
‘Verily’ at the beginning of a sentence instead of at the 
end, we have abundant Scriptural precedent, and it fur- 
nishes, as I look at it, a telling and acceptable transi- 
tion from the statement of: an eternal verity to the 
prayer that the conditions may be fulfilled in our own 
case. The more I think of it the less need I seem to see 
for Kyrie Eleison in this connection. ‘The Ten Com- 
mandments issue from Sinai and when authoritatively 
pronounced elicit a cry for ‘Mercy’,—not so with the 
Blessings, for 


“When he came the second time 
He came in power and love, 


as Keble has it.” 
154 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


When, years after, Dr. Huntington printed the 
Later Evensong for the Christian Year for use Sunday 
evenings in Grace Church, services which have become 
familiar and greatly loved by the many worshipers 
there, the response to the Beatitudes, in the Epiph- 
any Service, was further changed to read: ‘Amen. 
Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep 
it’’; and there was added at the end: 


VY. Hear also what the voice from heaven saith: 
Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. 

R. Even so saith the Spirit; for they rest from their 
labours. 


This story of the Beatitudes is profitable as showing 
that attainment in liturgical expression is inevitably a 
slow process, even when careful thought and a fine litur- 
gical sense are devoted to it. It tends to show also, we 
may fairly assume, that there is a right instinct in the 
Church as a whole in its refusal to grant any important 
place to the Beatitudes in a liturgical setting. ‘The 
Christian centuries have not wished to use it, the Re- 
vision of 1892 did not finally include it, and its sporadic 
use since the eighties seems to have received very slight 
commendation. The failure of the Beatitudes liturgi- 
cally probably rests in the meditative and paradoxical 
nature of these great words. Such “statements of eter- 
nal verities” do not lend themselves to the treatment of 
a said or sung response. In his enthusiasm for this bit 
of liturgical enrichment, Dr. Huntington is showing 
that his fine instinct and feeling in matters liturgical 

155 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


was not unerring. It is here as with his strong plead- 
ing for the singular as against the plural in the words 
“merciful ears” in the Burial Anthem. He made much 
of the importance of reading “shut not thy merciful 
ear to our prayer,” on the ground that this would prove 
a much-needed avoidance of anthropological error. 
But the Church would none of it. And the Church, 
with a finer instinct, was right. His symbolic exacti- 
tude in this case was in the way of the truer poetic in- 
sight, which he was far from being without. 

There were the difficulties inevitable to any process 
of revision, as the work went on. Great interest in the 
undertaking was shown not only in this country but also 
in England, as letters from Dean Stanley, Dr. Plump- 
tre, the Rev. Evan Daniel, and others prove. ‘This in- 
terest led to the making of suggestions, some of which 
seemed to call for consideration after points had been 
supposedly settled. Dr. Huntington himself, so late 
as the summer before the Convention, urged in a pam- 
phlet three supplementary suggestions. ‘They were a 
short substitute for the Te Deum, Alternatives to the 
Venite on Certain Festivals, and A Short Office of 
Prayer; and these, by general consent, were adopted. 
At the last moment, members of the commission would | 
protest against certain of the new prayers proposed as 
“not in harmony with the tone of the book”; and Bishop 
Coxe is twice telegraphed, “Send on prayers which you 
would be willing to substitute,” and again, “Do pray 
send on the collects, or at least some of them. Some 
compromise is probably possible.” 

156 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


There were also matters of procedure which led to 
debates and questionings. To the copyrighting of the 
report Dr. Huntington was opposed on the ground that 
the widest possible circulation was of advantage to the 
cause. A question arose as to the power of one Con- 
vention to establish a new office. That the Convention 
had this power, Dr. Huntington maintained, an office 
so established then becoming alterable only by two Con- 
ventions. On this constitutional point he had privately 
printed and circulated his pamphlet entitled, ‘““A Bound- 
ary Question,” in which he also sets forth his opinion 
that the Book of Common Prayer ends with the 
Psalter, and that the independence of the Ordinal and 
thirty-nine Articles should be attested by distinct title- 
pages. 

In one respect the joint committee was peculiarly 
fortunate, and that was that through the generosity of 
certain laymen, notably Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, suf- 
ficient funds were supplied to give the revisers prac- 
tically carte blanche in the matter of printing. It was 
this which made possible the preparation and printing 
of a complete Prayer Book as it would appear were 
the recommendations of the committee to be adopted. 
This book was attached to the report and came to be 
known as the “Book Annexed,” a peculiarly happy 
title, in that it was innocuous and avoided the hint of 
presumption which might seem to attach to a title like 
“The Proposed Book.” The advantages of this pro- 
ceeding were clearly perceived by Dr. Huntington 
early in the undertaking. These advantages were two. 

157 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


The “Book Annexed” proved at a glance to the anxious 
inquirer, who might be disturbed by the seemingly large 
mass of suggestions in the report, that the old and be- 
loved Prayer Book was after all substantially the same 
book it had always been. And, furthermore, it proved 
that there was no appreciable increase in bulk, as many 
had feared. 

As the work approached completion, there was much 
labor involved in seeing the report and the “Book An- 
nexed” through the press. The many intricacies of de- 
tail were followed by Dr. Huntington with a watchful 
eye, and yet, in spite of every care, the “Book Annexed” 
required, at the last, the appending of a table of almost 
one hundred minor corrections. And nothing was over- 
looked which might insure the smooth course of the re- 
port and help toward its favorable reception. In the 
spring of 1883 Dr. Huntington wrote to the papers, 
informing them that copies would be sent them at the 
same time that they are sent to members of the Con- 
vention, and asking them “to give as little publicity as 
possible to irresponsible rumors with respect to alleged 
features of the work.” 

When the report finally came before General Con- 
vention, its reception there and the progress of revision 
in the two houses was somewhat in the nature of a tri- 
umph. The recommendations were all considered, and 
for the most part approved. Where there were differ- 
ences between the houses, these were settled through a 
conference committee. In only one instance was there 
a call in the House of Deputies for a yote by dioceses 

158 


THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


and orders, and in this instance the recommendation of 
the revisers prevailed. In the final vote, which was 
upon the adoption of all the thirty-two resolutions of 
the joint committee as amended by the Committee of 
Conference, the extraordinary unanimity of the Con- 
vention was manifested by the fact that there was only 
one negative vote among the clergy, the vote of Vir- 
ginia, cast by one deputy, and only two negative votes 
among the laity, those of Georgia and South Carolina, 
these, in each case, cast also by one deputy. 

In 1880, what opposition there was to revision of any 
sort had rallied about a resolution presented at that 
time, and passed by the Convention, calling for the in- 
sertion in the Ratification of 1789, which stands on one 
of the first pages of the Prayer Book, of a provision for 
shortened services. The idea was that by this device of 
adding to the Ratification, which is neither a canon nor 
a rubric, all the liberty really required could be gained, 
while the book itself was left untouched. Several dio- 
ceses sent up to the Convention of 1883 memorials op- 
posing this makeshift scheme. It was perceived that a 
compromise of this sort would take away the hope of 
real revision and enrichment. Indeed, the proposer of 
the scheme had declared that his hope was that the Book 
of Common Prayer might in this way become not only 
the standard book but “a sealed book, for as many gen- 
erations as have passed since the present book was 
adopted.” A further difficulty about the proposal was 
that while seeming to give greater liberty, it at the same 
time took away a liberty heretofore recognized and 

159 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


cherished. It allowed for a sermon or lecture with the 
Lord’s Prayer and one or more collects, in addition to 
Morning and Evening Prayer, but expressly prohib- 
ited any prayers except those in the book or otherwise 
authorized, either before or after the sermon or lecture. 
This prohibition rallied in opposition to the measure all 
those, and among them Phillips Brooks, who valued the 
use of extempore prayer after sermons. Dr. Hunting- 
ton had himself strongly opposed the suggestion in his 
“Church Review” article on Revision. He character- 
ized the proposal as “the mutilation of a monument.” 
“The old Ratification of 1789,” he declared, “is an his- 
toric landmark, the sign-manual of the Church of 
White’s and Seabury’s day. It is as if the City Gov- 
ernment of Cambridge should cause to be cut upon the 
stone under the Washington elm which now records 
the fact that there the commander of the American ar- 
mies first drew his sword, divers and sundry additional] 
items of information, such as the distance to Water- 
town, and the shortest path across the Common.” 
When it appeared that the sentiment of the Conven- 
tion of 1883 was overwhelmingly favorable to the Joint 
Committee’s Report with its “Book Annexed,” the fate 
of the Ratification proposal was sealed. It was referred 
to the proper committee, from which committee it has 
never emerged. The hopes of those who wished to stay 
the hand of revision had now to be fixed upon the rati- 
fying convention of 1886, at which time there might 
perhaps develop a change of feeling, which would pre- 
vent final approval of what the Convention of 1883 had 
160 





FSO SL LOT LO IER ONE AN Net AREA ah 





THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 


passed. One little word, which found no place in the 
original resolutions of the joint committee, was inserted 
on the recommendation of the conference committee in 
every resolution. That word was the word “severally,” 
before the word “adopted.” It meant that a separate 
vote must be taken on every item under any given reso- 
lution. The fourteen items under Morning Prayer, 
for instance, were not to be passed under one resolution 
for revision of that office, but each item ratified sep- 
arately by a vote by dioceses and orders. Here was 
certainly opportunity for hope for those who would 
block the wheels of progress, and an assurance to those 
who felt that every detail must have careful delibera- 
tion and the closest scrutiny. Meantime, the friends of 
revision had won a notable victory, a victory due in 
large measure, as was generally recognized, to the fair- 
mindedness, persuasiveness, and skill of Dr. Hunt- 
ington. 


161 


Vil 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


Huntington’s chief claim to lasting fame was his 

invention and promulgation of the Quadrilateral. 
It was he who introduced that word into ecclesiastical 
history, making it stand as a foundation for all subse- 
quent discussion of Church unity. It was in a sermon 
preached at Worcester, January 30, 1870, that he for 
the first time set forth the term, and unfolded the 
scheme of which it was the expression, for the Church’s 
consideration. 

The text of the sermon was I Cor. 12, verses 4, 5, 
and 6. Near the close of the sermon there is a refer- 
ence to the Y. M. C. A. in Worcester, support for 
which he was asking of his people. He speaks of the 
Y. M. C. A. as a clearing ground for the future Church 
of the Reconciliation. In the last paragraph of this 
sermon, he says, “To love the Church because it is 
Christ’s Church is a better thing than to fight for it be- 
cause it is our Church.” ‘Then, after asking God to 
forgive any harsh or bitter words in the sermons of 
which this is the third which he has been preaching on 
the Church of the Reconciliation, he proceeds as fol- 
lows: “It behooves us all to remember that envy, 
hatred, malice, and every kind of uncharitableness are 

162 


|: might, with some reason, be maintained that Dr. 





THE CHURCH IDEA 


more likely to keep us out of heaven than the most ear- 
nest churchmanship, which cannot clear itself of com- 
plicity with these, is likely to get us in. Those pearly 
gates swing not on their hinges either to a proud or to 
an unloving soul.” 

The appearance of the Quadrilateral in this ser- 
mon came in the following passage: ‘Firmly con- 
vinced that in the Anglican principle lies the only 
reasonable hope of Christian unity in these latter days, 
I have made it my endeavor to disentangle the princi- 
ple from all accidental and unessential to it; to strip it 
of the wrappings in which the various circumstances of 
time and country have enfolded it, and to set it before 
you in simplicity. In a word, it has been to the strict 
anatomy of the subject and to nothing else that I have 
turned your thoughts. 

“Now the conditions of Church unity demanded by 
the Anglican principle, the points which that principle 
cannot possibly surrender without self-destruction, are 
these four: 

“1. The Holy Scriptures, as the Word of God. 

“2. The Primitive Creeds as the Rule of Faith. 

“8. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Him- 
self. 

“4. The Episcopate as the center or keystone of gov- 
ernmental unity. 

“These four points, like the four famous fortresses of 
Lombardy, make the Quadrilateral of Anglicism. 
Within them the Church of the Reconciliation stands 
secure.” 

1638 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


It was altogether characteristic of Dr. Huntington 
that in the last year of his life he should have sent the 
manuscript of this sermon to Mr. Morgan, to be placed 
in his library. In the note to Mr. Morgan which ac- 
companied it, he tells him that the first suggestion of 
the Quadrilateral appeared in this sermon. A large 
part of this was afterward produced in his book, “The 
Church Idea,” and he reminds Mr. Morgan that it was 
Dr. Nevin, through Dr. Huntington’s codperation, who 
in the Convention of 1886 brought the Quadrilateral 
to the attention of the bishops, with Bishop Littlejohn’s 
assistance. It appeared in the report of the Commit- 
tee on Church Unity. The act of the Bishops in accept- 
ing this report went in 1889 to the Lambeth Conference, 
and their statement was then reaffirmed with slight 
verbal changes. In the note to Mr. Morgan, Dr. 
Huntington said: ‘Not for the purpose of “putting in 
a claim,’ but simply in the interest of historical ac- 
curacy, I am asking you to find a place in your valuable 
collection of ecclesiastical Americana for the accom- 
panying manuscript sermon. I feel that it would be 
safer there than in any other place of deposit.” It is 
interesting to note that when, in the next summer, Dr. 
Huntington’s son wrote Mr. Morgan from the sick- 
room at Nahant, he said: “My father said to me this 
morning, ‘My thanks to Pierpont Morgan for his 
friendship and great help in critical moments. We 
have always trusted each other, though not always able 
to see eye to eye in matters of detail.’”” The full value 

164 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


of this historic document we are perhaps even yet un- 
able to estimate. 

It goes, of course, without saying that this was by 
no means his first public utterance on the subject of 
unity. It has been already stated that the inspiration 
of this ideal was the master motive of his life from the 
beginning of his ministry. This sermon was, however, 
the first enunciation of the plan or program, upon 
which he had been brooding for several years. As 
early as the spring of 1865, he had been invited to de- 
liver a sermon before the Church Union of Massachu- 
setts, an association devoted to the extension of the 
Protestant E/piscopal Church in the diocese of Massa- 
chusetts. This association had faith in the large oppor- 
tunities of the Church in the future development of 
American Christianity. The title of Dr. Huntington’s 
sermon is “American Catholicity,”’ and in the course of 
it he says: 


Never was there a grander opportunity to profit by the 
errors of the past in building for the future. We are enter- 
ing upon a period of reconstruction in the State; God grant it 
may also be a period of reconstruction in the Church... . 

In venturing to approach the problem of American catho- 
licity, I am not blind to the profound difficulties that encom- 
pass it. Grant that it is little a young man can do in such 
a work, but remember it is also little an old man can do. It 
rests with God. Let every one who feels deeply in the matter, 
be he young or old, do what he can by speaking out his thought 
honestly and plainly, and the fruit will ripen in due time. 


He goes on to define “the three conditions of Amer- 
165 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


ican catholicity: a simple creed; a varied worship; a 
generous polity.” And, in conclusion, he adds: “I 
cannot conceive of visible unity apart from unity of 
government, and I ask myself again and again where 
such unity is to be sought, unless we find it under that 
system which is both old and new, conservative and pro- 
gressive, catholic and reformed, the system of republi- 
can episcopacy. For this reason I feel that a weighty 
responsibility rests upon us churchmen to take the ini- 
tiative in the work of Christian reunion. It is idle to 
prate about the Church of the future, unless you can 
find for it some point of historical attachment to the 
Church of the past. Just this ‘missing link’ the 
Protestant-Eipiscopal Church in the United States 
supplies, a Church that traces her lineage all the way 
back to the first century, while, at the same time, she 
is, in her constitution, perfectly conformed to the struc- 
ture of the civil government under which we live.” 

The thought here is evidently leading the way to the 
later sermon, and to the final and full exposition of his 
mind in “The Church Idea,” which was published in 
1870. 

“The Church Idea” has for its subtitle, “An Essay 
towards Unity,” and for a device “‘Christo et Ecclesia.” 
Its subtitle might be, “An Exposition of the Quadri- 
lateral.” It is a small book, of only 175 pages, but is 
unquestionably the most important of the author’s writ- 
ings. It is dedicated to the friends of the Church of the 
Future, and the believers of the Church of the Past, as a 
sketch in outline of the Church of the Reconciliation. 

166 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


For forty years it may be said to have served as the 
handbook of the laborers for unity. Thirty years after 
its first appearance it was reprinted, with a new pre- 
face, and welcomed and circulated even more widely 
than at first. 

The word “quadrilateral” itself was taken over from 
a military connotation. In 1870 the famous quadrilat- 
eral of Lombardy, those four great fortresses which 
played so conspicuous a part in Napoleon the Third’s 
Sardinian campaign, was fresh in people’s minds. The 
figure was a happy adaptation for the purposes of the 
Church Militant. That Church might be described as 
militant against the world’s evil, but what it was mili- 
tant for was unity. It is possible for one to become 
the slave of his symbol. There were times, in his ser- 
mons, when Dr. Huntington seemed to be such a slave. 
But for the most part it is his distinction to have been 
a supreme master of the symbol, and to make it do a 
great work for the cause of truth. It was conspicu- 
ously so in this instance. His symbol provided the 
Church with a compelling and worth-while ideal in its 
militancy. Moreover, the author’s Quadrilateral, from 
the very first, linked itself with that splendid picture 
from the great Christian book of symbols, the four- 
square city of the pearly gates, the New Jerusalem, 
which gave to the figure of a military campaign the as- 
surance of a confident hope. Step by step along his 
patient way of labor for unity, he never faltered in his 
faith in the triumph of the ideal. At the time of the 
second printing of “The Church Idea” in 1899, he re- 

167 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


joices that “acquiescence in sectarianism, as being pre- 
sumably the ordinance of God, has ceased to be the 
almost universal state of mind it was in the United 
States of 1869”; and that “the pettiness of sectarian- 
ism has forced itself upon eyes blind to the wickedness 
of it, so that it would not be surprising if the ludi- 
crous aspect of our ‘unhappy divisions’ were even yet 
to move to repentance those whom the sad tragedy of 
the whole business has been powerless to affect.” He 
adds that, to him, “the history of Christendom seems 
to show a persistent though not steady movement to- 
wards larger and larger inclusions,’ and reminds his 
readers that “it is not force that really holds the United 
States together, but a common understanding, and that 
the spiritual order ought likewise ultimately to attain to 
a working unity.” Slavery, before the war, looked to 
be as firmly intrenched as “denominationalism” now. 
Immediate results he is not anticipating, but he believes 
in steering by the pole-star, whether one expects to out- 
live the voyage or not. 

The gist of the matter in “The Church Idea” is the 
last chapter, “Reconciliation,” in which he expounds 
the Quadrilateral. In leading up to this he discusses 
first the idea of the Church, and the clothing of that 
idea. He is convinced that, though hidden under a 
hundred disguises, it is with this idea that the world’s 
thoughts are busy. Men are possessed with an un- 
wonted longing for unity. The idea he defines as this, 
“that the Son of God came down from heaven to be the 
Saviour not only of men, but of man; to bring ‘good 

168 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


tidings of great joy’ not only to every separate soul, but 
also to all souls collectively.” The Gospel has a two- 
fold outlook, fronting upon the individual in one direc- 
tion, in the other upon society. Even the schoolmen 
recognized this distinction, in making two of the seven 
sacraments, Matrimony and Orders, the conferrers of 
grace upon society, while the other five conferred it on 
the individual. Throughout the teaching of Christ he 
finds always present the double application to the indi- 
vidual and to the Church. There is the Kingdom 
within and the Kingdom without, the Kingdom now on 
earth in the hearts of his people, the Kingdom in its 
fullness yet to be. And the law of spiritual proportion 
is applicable alike to the individual man and to the 
“colossal man,” society; the Kingdom is meant to be 
both spiritual and visible, internal and external. “The 
variety of limestone known as calc-spar crystallizes in 
the rhombohedral form, and it is a peculiarity of this 
mineral that if you shatter a crystal of it by a blow of 
the hammer, each little fragment will be found to be a 
perfect rhombohedron in miniature.” 

He finds the best analogy for the Church to be St. 
Paul’s, namely, the body, and from that analogy he 
derives the four characteristics of the perfect Church, 
Visibility, the Indwelling Spirit of the Lord, Unity, 
and the Capability of perpetual renewal. Of the last 
point, he says: ‘““We talk about Reformations of the 
Church, and argue whether they are desirable or not. 
Reformations?: Why, the whole life of the Church 
ought to be a continual Reformation. Those who 

169 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


fancy that in order to demonstrate the identity of the 
Church they must import into the nineteenth century 
the cultus of the thirteenth are under a delusion. As 
well refuse to own your friend because his countenance 
at forty is not what it was at twenty-five, as turn sus- 
picious of the Church of your fathers because it does 
not look to you precisely as it looked to them.” 

After thus defining the Church Idea, the author pro- 
ceeds to a discussion of the Idea Exaggerated, which is 
Romanism, the Idea Diminished, which is Puritanism, 
and the Idea Distorted, which is Liberalism. 

The argument against Rome he rests upon the simple 
fact that she has added to the faith. At the very time 
when “The Church Idea” was published, Rome was 
busy crystallizing what might once have been only a 
pious opinion regarding papal infallibility into author- 
itative doctrine, just as a few years before she had 
crystallized into the dogma of the Immaculate Concep- 
tion a pious opinion as to the Virgin Mary. “No 
‘theory of development,’ skilfully wrought as it may 
be, can ever prove the mistletoe to have been in the 
acorn around the offspring of whose womb it clings.” 

As against the Puritan theory of the Church, in 
accordance with which the Gospel is held to be, as it 
were, a magnet, by which the particles of true steel are 
drawn out from the heap of sand, there is set the ideal 
of Christ, who intended his Church to rest upon the in- 
clusive and comprehensive principle. “The Church’s 
standard is one of aspiration, not attainment. Content 
with nothing short of perfection, she yet, like her divine 

170 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


Head, bears with imperfection. The issue is between 
the two ideas of inclusiveness and exclusiveness, com- 
prehension and selection. On the one side stands the 
Puritan demanding that the books be opened and the 
sentence given at once; against him are the Words of 
Jesus, the Practice of the Apostles, the Experience of 
History.” ‘Rome adds a cubit to the stature of the 
body mystical of Christ, and thus hurts it by excess. 
But it is quite as possible to mar that faultless form by 
belittling its majesty. The ‘perfect man’ to whom St. 
Paul likens the united and developed Church is neither 
a giant nor a dwarf. Addition and subtraction are 
alike fatal to the Gospel’s symmetry. ‘The one error 
gives us grossness, the other, insignificance.” ‘The 
rampant sectarianism which flows from the Puritan 
idea brings impoverishment in doctrine as well as in 
polity and practical results. “No one can ever know 
how large a proportion of our current infidelity is trace- 
able to the disgust engendered in educated minds by 
sectarian narrowness. The thoughtful boy, coming 
suddenly to the knowledge that the ocean of God’s 
truth is broader and deeper than the village mill-pond 
by which he was brought up, is often hasty to resolve 
that he will start upon the open sea in his own skiff, 
unpiloted, and with no compass but the stars.” 
Liberalism is defined as the spirit that is impatient 
of anything like authority, whether in doctrine or dis- 
cipline, that spirit which would begin its creed with “I 
conjecture” rather than with “I believe.” Over 
against a false liberty, the author sets the freedom of 
171 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


the sons of God. ‘Truth is freedom, and in Jesus 
Christ God has revealed truth to man. ‘Where the 
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” In Liberalism 
in religion there is to be discovered a distortion of the 
true idea. “The target of perfection may be missed in 
any of three ways. A shot may fly beyond the range, 
or it may fall short, or again it may be, as we say, ‘be- 
side the mark.’ In Nature’s archery, one of these er- 
rors gives us exaggeration, another diminution, and the 
third distortion.” For a summary of his examination 
of Romanism, Puritanism, and Liberalism, Dr. Hunt- 
ington makes use of the Parable of the Good Shepherd. 
“They shall hear my voice.” ‘There shall be one fold.” 
“There shall be one shepherd.” Rome has heard and 
given heed to other voices than his. Puritanism has 
forgotten the one fold in its zeal for some things the 
Good Shepherd says. Liberalism looks for other 
leaders than the Son of Mary. “The Christian 
Church,” says Liberalism, “is not large enough for 
America. A religion universalized by the genius of 
American liberty must supplant the narrow and cramp- 
ing Christianity of the churches.” 

Before, in his final chapter, the -author definitely 
states the program of the Quadrilateral, he discusses in 
the immediately preceding chapter the American Prob- 
lem. He contends that the peculiarity of our situation 
lies in the fact that “we are testing a novel combination 
of old ideas under circumstances peculiarly favorable 
to success.” He “boldly claims that the experiment 
of greatest moment now in progress here is not popular 

172 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


government at all, but this, The Mutual Independence 
of Church and State.’ He declares that the secret of 
our national destiny lies wrapped in the short sentence 
of the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law re- 
specting an establishment of religion.” It is granted 
that “with morality and crime a non-Christian govern- 
ment is perfectly competent to deal.” All the more 
it becomes clear how tremendous is the demand upon 
the Church of Christ which our national theory throws 
down at its feet, to furnish the State with a high and 
pure standard. To meet this demand “we want a 
large-roofed, firmly founded spiritual dwelling-place, 
—a House of God, a shelter for a mighty people.” 
The problem is: ‘Given a country constituted like 
ours, how is the Church of Christ therein planted to 
achieve and maintain her proper unity?” Difficulties 
enough there are, but there is hope in the dominance of 
our English language and ideals, and in the common 
sense of our intense practicalness, “not apt to be long 
tolerant of a proved absurdity.” As for the English 
dominance, the author holds it to be true that “in our 
favorite vices and our favorite virtues, in our judg- 
ments and our tastes we shall bear the impress of the 
Anglo-Saxon mint forever,” and that while “the Cath- 
olie Church of America will doubtless have something 
peculiarly American about its build, it will at the same 
time assuredly bear a closer resemblance to an English 
home than to either an Italian palazzo or a French 
chateau.” Surely the Spirit of God which moved upon 
the face of the waters and shaped a formless universe 
173 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


is able to give unity and order to a great family of liv- 
ing souls. “Here in America, if anywhere on earth, a 
Church of the Reconciliation ought to be among the 
things possible. Nowhere else can the constructive ef- 
fort be made with so fair a promise of success.” 

In approaching his final constructive platform of the 
Quadrilateral in the concluding chapter of his argu- 
ment, Dr. Huntington contends that for the Unity 
towards which we aim, a definite center of unity is 
necessary. ‘T'o use a chemical figure, “the way to pro- 
duce a beautiful effect in crystallization is to hang up 
by a thread in the liquid that contains the future crys- 
tal in solution a solid piece of stone or metal.” Or, 
to use an architectural figure, “the first condition of the 
problem of American Catholicity is a definite founda- 
tion.” Moreover, “this foundation must have an his- 
torical character, its roots must be driven deep down 
into the farthest past.” Therefore, if there is ever to 
be such a thing as a United Church of America, it will 
rest either upon an Anglican or a Roman foundation. 
The Roman foundation is demonstrated impossible, 
The question then becomes, what are the essential, the 
absolutely essential features of the Anglican position, 
by which is meant not the Anglican system, but the 
Anglican principle, in the writer’s mind, America’s best 
hope. The answer is the Quadrilateral, which Dr. 
Huntington then posits, and proceeds to discuss and 
analyze, making what he calls the tour of the Quadri- 
lateral. The discussion and analysis need not now con- 

174 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


cern us. The statement in its brief original form is as 
follows: 


The true Anglican position, like the City of God in the 
Apocalypse, may be said to lie four-square. Honestly to 
accept that position is to accept,— 

Ist. The Holy Scriptures as the Word of God. 

2nd. The Primitive Creeds as the Rule of Faith. 

3rd. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself. 

4th. The Episcopate, as the key-stone of Governmental 
Unity. 


By the side of this, it is interesting to place the final 
Chicago-Lambeth Declaration. The differences be- 
tween the two provide in themselves an epitome of the 
discussions of the next eighteen years. In essence the 
two statements are one. The later declaration reads: 


I. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 
as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being 
the rule and ultimate standard of Faith. 

II. The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and 
the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian 
Faith. 

III. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself,— 
Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,—ministered with un- 
failing use of Christ’s words of institution, and of the ele- 
ments ordained by Him. 

IV. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the 
methods of its administration to the varying needs of the na- 
tions and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church. 


From the beginning Dr. Huntington had occupied 
himself with writing, as occasion gave him opportunity. 
175 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


It was in the early sixties that his name appeared as 
office editor of the “Church Monthly.” On its editorial 
board were the Rev. F. D. Huntington, the Rev. G. M. 
Randall, the Rev. George S. Converse, and the Rev. J. 
I. T. Coolidge. As one turns over the pages of this 
“Monthly,” among articles on liturgical topics and 
poems one discovers somewhat academical discussions of 
redemption, infant baptism, and other theological 
topics. The articles are not signed, but it is not diff- 
cult to perceive that now and then the office editor con- 
tributed, and lightened the page with touches of fancy 
and allegory. 

But, with the exception of occasional sermons or ar- 
ticles in the papers, and the writing that concerned it- 
self with Prayer Book revision, the only book published 
by Dr. Huntington during the rectorship of All Saints, 
Worcester, beside “The Church Idea,” was a small vol- 
ume published by KE. P. Dutton & Company in 1878, 
entitled, “Conditional Immortality.” The book was a 
series of nine sermons, which had been delivered in the 
parish. 

As we know, presentations of this subject had 
strongly influenced Dr. Huntington, even in the years 
before he entered upon the work in Worcester, espe- 
cially Charles Frederick Hudson’s book entitled, “Debt 
and Grace.” Furthermore, it is of interest to remem- 
ber that it was in relation to the “doctrine of the last 
things” that young Huntington, the candidate, was 
thought to be unsound by Bishop Eastburn, and pos- 
sibly one to whom ordination should be denied. 

176 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


It is to be noted that this theory of conditional im- 
mortality appears to have had a certain fascination for 
preachers and leaders in the Episcopal Church. In 
1901 Dr. S. D. McConnell discussed ‘“Immortability”’ 
in his book ““The Evolution of Immortality,” and many 
years later the Rev. Frederic Palmer published his vol- 
ume entitled “The Winning of Immortality.” The 
appeal which this teaching has made seems to rest upon 
the desire to preserve the majesty of the righteous God, 
which had been so splendid a gift of inherited Calvin- 
ism, and at the same time to escape the morally abhor- 
rent teaching of the everlasting punishment of the 
wicked. It is doubtful if the teaching, however lucidly 
explained, has had any wide acceptance in the Church. 
It is probable that to most of those within the Church’s 
fold the thought of the righteous God was not imperiled 
by the conception of the larger hope. Moreover, there 
has probably been a feeling that the vital concept of im- 
mortality was imperiled by the theory of the annihila- 
tion of the wicked. It does not appear that at the time 
of Huntington’s presentation of the matter it won for 
itself any large following. The book is characterized 
by his usual lucidity of style and picturesqueness of 
presentation. 


177 


a 


eet 


Le 
Nn a aries 


ho “ bf, 
Pahl eed Wait 
Peart cae ip Ae ae 
Cu te AUSTEN ee A “ % 
My eat i ma as ee 
d Soom on maa 
mt ty 


ney | 
: oye i ue he 


’ 7 
a Ap Hi 
fh ik fr 


H 
by 


8 pir 


ha i 

si im rte mihi, ¢ he i Tk ee Pi e oe 
a Me Seal ek . i 

De i) siete ay oS ig } en I 


om ae me ne 


be 
yf 4 

Tar ay 
at 


Wha 
SF eben pearl 
Aoe¥ 
‘ey 
c 


Vie 


t 
) iy, iG 
f Oni 
(yw 


4 


ae a iy ane 


Wate van 
iy heh Wi 
LES (ees 


, ; ri 
TRIG: ee. fi mh 


py 


i Maca yy 


ye id RA 
SAN res Hes i 





LETTERS 


ae 


Hifya SA 
tas n 


Te ‘ 
pg ayn 





Worcester, Dec. 10: 1878. 
My Dear Miss Mrrepiru: 

. . . Upon general principles I disapprove thoroughly of 
letting sermons be printed, but there is a kindly persuasive- 
ness about these Philadelphia critics which it is hard to resist. 
Capt. Biddle writes that he and some of his friends, or rather, 
to be more accurate, some of the people who were at St. 
Stephen’s that night, would like to have the suggestions of 
the sermon given a wider circulation, and I have therefore 
consented to be instrumental in adding to the piles of pamphlet 
sermons which one sees in Antiquarian libraries and paper- 
mills. 

No stanza in Tennyson’s great poem is more pathetic to the 
mind of a half-and-half author than this: 


“These mortal lullabies of pain 
May bind a book, may line a box 
May serve to curl a maiden’s locks; 
Or, when a thousand moons shall wane, 
A man upon a stall may find,” ete. 


I suppose he would have said “trunk” instead of “box” if 
it would have rhymed with “locks,” although the good old cus- 
tom of lining trunks with refuse literature is on the wane. 
But this is what the Commentators call an excursus. Let me 
come back to matters more to the point. Your explanation 
of the English “canonical hours” is the one approved by Blunt 
in his “Annotated Prayer Book,” although the disreputable 
theory of common drunkenness is the one more generally re- 
ceived. Indeed, only the other day, Punch had a very droll 
picture of a curate rebuking a young woman for coming to 
church to be married with the bridegroom in an evident state 
of advanced intoxication. “Indeed, sir, I’m sorry enough,” 
she answers, wiping her eyes, “but I never can persuade him to 


181 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


come, but only at just such times.” The Gretna Green ex- 
planation will, I suspect, scarcely hold, for it could only have 
applied in old times to the northern countries, and such special 
legislation would have been unlikely. Are you fond of puz- 
zling over difficult handwriting? If you are, I will send you a 
note of Dean Stanley’s which came into my possession under 
curious circumstances. 'The English publisher of “Conditional 
Immortality” put me down on the title-page (I think I told 
you) as the author of “‘Xtian Believing and Living,” one of 
Bp. Huntington’s volumes of sermons. Following this, came 
a letter from Rev. Mr. White in which, after speaking of the 
circumstances of the reprint, he said “It comes just at a time 
when it is fitted to attract attention, and your former works 
conciliate for it a friendly reception.” This was trying 
enough, to think that I should be the unwitting means of in- 
volving the good-name and established repute of my dear 
friend Bp. Huntington in the shadow of my heresies. But 
scarcely had a day passed, before I got a letter from Bp. 
Huntington himself enclosing one written by Dean Stanley 
on board the Bothnia thanking him (the Bishop) for the copy 
of the “Church Idea” written by him, which he had been reading 
on board ship. The note was so utterly unintelligible that 
Bp. Huntington had had to send it to an expert; whose trans- 
lation of it he enclosed. Was it not a droll coincidence that 
the two counter-blunders should have happened thus simul- 
taneously? .., 


Worcester, Dec. 16: 1878. 


My Dear Miss Menrenpirn: 

- - . I wonder if you have fallen in with the newly published 
sermons of the late Fred. Brooks edited by his brother Phillips. 

They are full of suggestions, and, although somewhat un- 
finished as literary efforts, are on the whole quite what sermons 
ought to be. It is interesting to find in them that which one 
misses a little, I think, in the preaching of the more famous 
brother, an occasional touching of the minor chord, an appre- 


182 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


ciation of the tragic as contrasted with the cheery view of life. 
But I am giving you a small sermon of my own. Pardon me 
and believe me 

Sincerely yours. 


The Rectory, Monday, Dec. 23, 1878. 
My Dear Miss Acnzs: 

Defective proof-reading is, of course, always a serious 
blemish upon any publication, no matter what it 1s ;—but bar- 
ring these errors of the press (and I am thankful that the 
greater number of them happen to fall inside the limits of my 
unhappy little abstract) the Christmas Holly of this year 
strikes me as doing great credit to the Wednesday Club in 
general, and to the Literary Committee in particular. A more 
clever bit of descriptive writing than “An Earthly Paradise,” 
one does not often see anywhere. Miss Etta certainly has a 
special gift that way. The verse too, take it as a whole, is 
very good; though one might wish that the laws of prosody had 
been a little more regarded in some instances. 

To revert to the misprints, I would say that some of them 
are sufficiently droll to atone, almost, for the mortification 
which they cause. To see imperial St. Sophia described as 
being now in use as a “morgue” is “alone worth the price of 
the paper”; and I think I see the usually benign countenance 
of my late curate grow dark and lowering when, in the most 
pathetic passage of his truly pathetic poem, his eye falls on 
“bust” for “burst.” 

I am very sorry to know that you are ill, and have little 
doubt that in the family circle the blame is laid at the door 
of All Saints. I never take any comfort in a sore-throat be- 
cause I know that the bulk of my parishioners are saying, 
“Serves him right. I told you so, Why would he insist on 
having so many services?” But over-work, which sometimes 
is inevitable for the minister, ought never to find a place in the 
Church life of the parishioners, and if you have been erring in 
this direction I shall insist on your resigning something. 


183 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Worcester, Feb. 4: 1879. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 

. . +. I am glad that my thoughts about the Prayer Book 
strike you not unfavorably. I am not sanguine as to results, 
but I thought it could do no harm to improve the opportunity 
thrown in my way of planting a seed or two. 

I thought that possibly as the result of what was said it 
might come to pass that the great-grandson of some interested 
listener might rise in his place in the General Convention of 
1980 or thereabouts and propose, not ineffectually, the change 
of some punctuation mark in the Liturgy. 

Perhaps I am too faithless. Bp. Littlejohn, one of the most 
sagacious of our “prelates,” writes me that in his judgment 
the Church will be ready ten or fifteen years hence for some 
such action as the sermon suggests; but what I fear is that the 
convenient season will forever be “ten or fifteen” years ahead, 
the horizon of timeliness moving as we move. 

Richards of Providence writes, “Would your voice might 
prevail and an i be dotted somewhere without scandal; but 
weak brethren are many, and other brethren who trade on 
their weakness not a few. But the world does move.” . . 


Worcester, Mar. 5: 1879. 
My Dear Miss Merepitu: 

There really are no thoroughly good tracts for Confirm- 
ation, and very strange it is that there are not. The English 
literature of this sort is abundant enough, but scarcely avail- 
able for our purposes here. A few weeks ago, I sent to the 
headquarters of the S. P. C. K. in London for a “trial package” 
of their tracts, and there was scarcely one of them that I 
should have thought of using. ‘Plough-boys” and “Girls at 
Service” seemed to be almost the only souls addressed. Con- 
firmation over there is treated more as a matter of course than 
it is with us. When the children grow to be fourteen years 
old they are confirmed because it is the regular and correct 
thing, and it is almost amusing to observe in these English 
tracts how frequent are the warnings to the girls not to be 


184 | 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


vain of their confirmation dresses, and to the boys to avoid 
scuffing and misbehaviour when they find themselves in the 
crowd at the great parish Church. The confirmation tracts 
that have been written here err perhaps in the other direction. 
They are apt to be a little too scholastic, and have more to 
say about Tertullian and Cyprian than is quite necessary. 
The High Church ones moreover are apt to suggest that grace 
enters the head through the Bishop’s hands, and represent 
Confirmation as a quasi sacrament, while the Evangelical ones 
tell us that no one can be a Christian who dances or plays 
cards. The leaflets I sent you seem to me very good, as far 
as they go, especially the “Eight Common Objections.” <A 
good way to use them is to distribute them through the sit- 
tings of a Church some weeks before a confirmation is to take 
place. People pick them up, carry them home and are set to 
thinking by them. Still we need something better. Why not 
try your hand at it? 

Can you not give me some idea of Mr. Brooks’ “Bohlen 
Lectures” and what they were about? I asked him, a while 
ago, what the subject was to be, and he answered that he had 
not yet finished writing the third one,—a reply which scarcely 
seemed to me relevant, but which may have been intended to 
suggest that the question was not timely. He preached for 
us at All Saints, Ash Wednesday night, and was interesting 
as he always is... . 


Worcester, March 25: 1879. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 

. . . The notable excitement in our quiet little city, since I 
last wrote you, has been the preaching of “Father Fidelis” 
(Kent Stone) at a “Mission” or revival in one of the R. C. 
Churches here. I suppose of course you know who he is and 
all about him, and I dare say you have read his book, “The 
Invitation Heeded.” He and I were in College together and 
were friends, though not especially intimate ones. I went to 
hear him twice while he was here and we exchanged calls. He 
has left the Paulists, the order which he joined when he first 
entered the Roman Ch. and is now a Passionist. He dresses 


185 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


himself up in a long serge robe, has a leather belt around his 
waist in which a crucifix is stuck, and from which a rosary 
hangs, and on his feet he wears (and this seems to be the 
crowning charm in the eyes of those who were fascinated by 
his picturesque appearance) on his feet he actually wears 
sandals, real sandals, not the sort the india-rubber men sell, 
but the genuine Scriptural and medieval article. 

While I listened to him recklessly asserting that between 
Protestants and infidels there was nowadays nothing to choose, 
and that all the scientific men of the day of any standing were 
avowed positivists, it was hard not to cry out, “Kent Stone, that 
is a lie, and you know it.” However, I should have been torn 
piecemeal by the angry mob had I done so, and it was probably 
quite as well that I kept my wrath to myself. As a conse- 
quence of my attending two of his discourses (at one of which 
I stood up for an hour and a half in the midst of a seething 
mass of Irish) it is currently reported about town that I am 
presently going over to Rome myself. The story loses nothing 
from the fact that one of my lady parishioners who has been 
a concealed Romanist for years, trying all this while to be 
happy at All Saints for her husband’s sake, has suddenly come 
out and declared that she can no longer imperil her soul by 
such worldly conformity. While I differ from her conclusions, 
I cannot but respect her motives as much as I pity her husband. 

Romanism reminds one of Ritualism and that reminds one 
of Dr. De Koven. The morning after receiving your startling 
statement that I was a candidate for the vacant rectorship of 
St. Mark’s, I read with no little amusement the news of Dr. 
De Koven’s call thither. The notion of his and my having 
been thought of in connection with the same vacancy struck 
me as very droll. Then a few days more, and there came the 
tidings of his sudden death. Widely as I differed with him 
I felt a real attachment for him. He was a unique figure in 
our Church life, as much so in his way as Mr. Brooks in his, 
or Stephen Tyng in his. No one can quite take his place, and 
it is to be feared that the sessions of the Gen. Convention, never 
over-sprightly, will become, for lack of him, hopelessly insipid. 


186 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


Worcester, May 12, 1879. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 

Have you forgotten the look of my handwriting? I should 
not wonder. But the simple truth is I have been driven from 
pillar to post ever since Easter, notwithstanding the fact that 
these are usually weeks of rest. Even to-day I have to snatch 
an hour that ought properly to be given to preparing an 
address on “Diocesan Missions.” Does not that sound attrac- 
tive? I will take special pains to keep the least whiff of the 
subject from getting into my letter. Nothing is more un- 
suggestive of Diocesan Missions than Matthew Arnold whom 
you say you have been reading, so let us turn to him. I like 
the “Stanzas from the Grande Chartreuse” best,—don’t you? 
(At this point in came a Vestryman who has occupied half an 
hour in talking over the Annual Choir Festival, Diocesan Con- 
vention, etc., etc.) For passion, or even for melody, nothing, 
I think, is finer than the antiphonal portion of ‘Tristram and 
Iseult,” but for the peculiar characteristics which make 
Arnold the poet he is, the “Grande Chartreuse” seems to come 
first. “Empedocles on Etna” interests me very much. Among 
the shorter poems I like best “St. Brandan” and the “Lines in 
Kensington Gardens.” These last come nearer to the form 
and temper of a Christian layman than anything Matthew 
Arnold has written, and even here we get no higher than 
“Calm soul of all things,” which may, and probably does, stand 
for an impersonal abstraction. It was my misfortune, when 
a very young man, to hear Matthew Arnold lecture twice in 
Oxford. The impression I received from listening to him was 
one of intense dislike, and I suspect that this gave me a bias 
which has unfitted me to judge him fairly. He seemed to me 
the very embodiment of intellectual coxcombry. The bad 
taste left in my mouth seems to return at every contact with 
his prose, but the exquisite beauty of his verse is too much for 
me and I succumb saying, “Let him be a tom-fool or anything 
else he chooses to be, if only he will write such poetry as that.” 
While you are in the spirit of Matthew Arnold you ought to 
look up and enjoy Arthur Hugh Clough, a poet of similar 


187 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


make, indeed coined in the same mint,—Rugby. Clough was 
in this country for a while earning his living by being a private 
tutor (“coach”) at Cambridge and by translating Plutarch 
for Little & Brown. Apparently he came here under the stress 
of that singular restlessness under the restraints of English 
society which has led more than one of their literary men to 
think of seeking a refuge in America, although in most in- 
stances they have contented themselves with thinking of it. 
But Clough actually came, and his letters from America make 
one of the most interesting parts of the two attractive volumes, 
one of Life & Letters and the other of Poems, which his widow 
has edited since his death. The book is well worth your look- 
ing up if you do not happen to know it already; and if you 
should seek it out let me especially commend to your notice, 
among the Poems, “The New Sinai.” .. . 


Worcester, June 4: 1879. 
My Dear Miss Mereviru: 

So Clough was no stranger to you after all! Still, I am 
glad I mentioned him, if only because of its leading you to re- 
mind me of “Qua Cursum Ventus,” which I have been reading 
again with renewed appreciation of its beauty. Probably 
everyone can recall some forfeited friendship of times past to 
which the parable of the poem applies. In my own case it 
calls up, with the utmost vividness, a college intimacy with a 
young man who has since become one of the apostles of “Free 
Religion” and the Editor of an anti-Christian newspaper. 
Theologically we are as wide apart as the poles, we seldom see 
each other and long ago gave up writing to each other; but 
the old affection is alive in both hearts, nevertheless ; and under- 
neath the silence we keep on caring for one another, 

You ask me about Keble, and what I think of his poetry. 
Perhaps the highest praise one can possibly give him is to say 
that when one feels most detached from this world then Keble’s 
verse comes very close home to him, and per contra that when 
one gathers interest in the things of earth and thinks it worth 

188 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


while to read the papers and look at the last book, Keble 
recedes into the background. 

The simple fact that strong men of the most diverse schools 
of thought have cared so much for the “Christian Year,” and 
drawn so much intellectual as well as devotional stimulus from 
it, is evidence enough that a reader ought first to suspect his 
own powers of appreciation and receptivity before deciding 
too hastily that Keble’s poetry is pale or dull. It was my 
great good fortune, when a young man, just in orders, to have 
an hour or two with Keble in his own beautiful home at Hurs- 
ley. He seemed as shy and bashful as a girl, and though it 
was easy to realize that I was in the presence of a saint, it was 
difficult to believe that the saint was also one of the most 
learned and one of the best known men in England. The 
hymn for the 24th Sunday after Trinity is I suppose (apart 
from the familiar morning & evening hymns) the most general 
favorite with readers of the Christian Year, but I also hold 
very high the one for the 21st Sunday. 

To turn to subjects less grave,—What droll reading the 
published “Report” of the St. Clement’s investigating Com- 
mittee is! The jottings of evidence given in the form of an 
anonymous diary remind me of nothing so much, in point of 
style, as Burnand’s “Happy Thoughts.” Reading the pam- 
phlet in a Boston horse-car yesterday, I found even the presence 
of unsympathetic passengers scarcely sufficient restraint to keep 
me from breaking into a laugh. I wonder if dear old Dr. 
Goodwin is responsible for the scraps of Latin, here and there. 
Whoever it is who represents the clergy of St. Clement’s as 
going down the aisle singing ““Nunc Dimittis” must have had 
jumbled up in his mind the aged Simeon’s song and “Lord, dis- 
miss us.” I should think the ritualists and their friends would 
make endless fun of this solemn document. 

We too have promise of a pamphlet war. A paragraph 
in Bp. Paddock’s address moved the wrath of the Ch. of the 
Advent (our St. Clement’s) and the result is a pamphlet from 
“Father” Hall entitled “Confession and the Lambeth Con- 


189 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


ference.” I feel strongly moved to strike in and have a word 
too, but shall probably think better of it. What should you 
say to a polemic with some such title as this,—‘The Con- 
fessional; Is it worth our while to revive it?” 

What I should try to show would be that no matter how 
many detached authorities they can marshal from among post- 
Reformation divines in favor of Confession, in some sense or 
other, the solid fact remains that English speaking people 
have condemned the Confessional as an institution. After 
having been tried on a large scale and for many generations 
it has been deliberately voted down as a bad thing, a thing 
which causes more evils than it cures. I think this might be 
done without any of that sensational ranting about the Con- 
fessional which has caused so many people to react in favor 
of a thing so indiscriminately berated. 


Worcester, Aug. 5: 1879. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 

- - + But what about Mallock? To quote Punch again,— 
“Is life worth living? That depends on the liver.” But 
seriously I think the man’s writings will do good ;—first by 
exposing (as MacDonald in “Thomas Wingfold” did less 
powerfully) the preposterous fallacy of the “hope full of 
(vicarious) immortality” held out by the positivists & sec- 
ularists, and secondly by showing the impotency of a sectarian 
Christianity to meet the difficulty. I am one of those who 
cling to the dream of unity, in spite of the discouragements 
of the past. I believe that God is keeping in store for His 
Church a better and completer oneness than it has ever known, 
and therefore I do not deprecate such keen ridicule as this 
which Mallock visits upon our helplessness, feeling that though, 
for the present moment, it may favor the falsehood of Rome, 
in the end it will inure to the benefit of the truth. I fully be- 
lieve with Mallock that only the Catholic Church js equal to 
our great emergency, but, in my judgment, he hurts rather 
than helps his argument by identifying the Catholic with the 
Papal Church. .. . 

190 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


The Rectory, Nov. 24, 1879. 
My Dear Mrs. Mercatr: 

Thank you for lending me this book. I find it exceedingly 
difficult to analyse the impression which it has produced on 
me. Certainly one cannot refuse admiration to unselfish 
heroism wherever one sees it, but when I am urged to believe 
(and it seems to be the aim of this book so to urge one) that 
in what is popularly known as “‘ritualism” we are sure to find 
the best training-school for this high quality of soul,—why 
then I cannot help recalling the nurses of the Howard Associa- 
tion and other plain people who went quietly and bravely to 
their deaths at Memphis and elsewhere without any sounding 
of the trumpet either before or after, and (what is more to 
the point) without any such preparatory training in sacra- 
mentalism as that which Mr. Schuyler’s biographer counts so 
essential to good Xtian work. 

Indeed I can only say, and I say it with real sadness, that 
if the doctrinal animus of this Memorial truly represents the 
teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ I have fatally misread my 
New Testament, if it truly represents the teaching of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church I have hopelessly mistaken my 
calling. This, of course, is a small matter to others but it is 
of real moment to me, and that the reading of his book should 
have started such questions in my mind is an evidence that the 
author of it writes with both skill and force. 

Again thanking you for thinking of me and begging you to 
pardon my outspokenness, I am... 


Worcester, Dec. 3: 1879. 
My Dear Miss MERrepiru: 

. . - It is easy to exhort you to throw the whole thing off 
your mind, and not to worry about it, and I suppose there are 
many to give you this counsel, but oh how easy it is “to 
preach,”—and then again how hard, as we professional preach- 
ers know to our cost, so to preach that the word shall really 
get in. After all, Christ’s words are better than any man’s: 
He never preaches (in the unwelcome sense) and He helps us 


191 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


to peace, sometimes, when nothing whatsoever can help us to 
happiness. 

I have just been reminding a little handful of people at my 
Wednesday evening service that to-day is the 17th Anniversary 
of my ordination and settlement here. I was ordained priest 
and received as rector on the same day. It is a long while to 
have been in one’s first and only parish. When I weigh, as I 
sometimes try to do, the advantages and disadvantages of long 
pastorates, I am sorely puzzled to determine how the balance 
ought to be struck. There is something rather attractive in 
the thought of growing old along with your people, slowly 
building up an influence by dint of long staying on until you 
come to be cared for in much the same way that the old elms on 
the street corners are cared for; something pleasant too in 
watching the young people grow up, in marrying to one an- 
other the children you baptized ever so long ago, and all that 
sort of thing; but it does seem, at times, as if it would be 
interesting to try what one could do with a new people not 
used to the sound of one’s voice, weary of one’s habitual way of 
putting things, and general make-up. I generally settle down 
upon a conclusion that to stay is best; and that the necessity 
of constantly writing new sermons is a wholesome tonic for 
both mind and spirit. Speaking of writing, it happened to 
be my turn to read an essay at our Club in Boston last night, 
so I determined to follow up the tone of thought started in 
my sermon of a year ago, and took for a subject, The Pros- 
pect and Methods of Prayer Book Revision. Some time or 
other, when you are at leisure for such things, I should like 
to show you what I have written. .. . 


Worcester, Apr. 8th, 1880. 
My Dear Miss Merevirn: 

- I am glad you liked my notions on the subject of re- 
vision. There is little prospect of their ever finding embodi- 
ment, but in an essay written for a Club one is at liberty to 
dream. As one gets on in life, the coral island illustration 
gains on him, and he acquiesces in the notion of being a little 


192 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


imsect far down below the surface, content %o live and die if 
only out of his work shall grow, etc., etc. 

Speaking of living and dying how the biographies of the 
people who put us all to shame by what they accomplish are 
multiplying on our hands. Scarcely have we recovered from 
the discouragement caused us by Mrs. Hare, and Mrs. Tait 
and Mrs. Stanley when up starts “Sister Dora” opening a 
wholly new vein. I only know the book as yet by a review, in- 
deed, I think the Am. Edition is not yet out, but I have seen 
enough by way of sample to convince me that it is one which 
no well regulated parish library can afford to be without... . 


Worcester, May 18: 1880. 

My Dear Miss MEREDITH: C 

_. . Assuredly I have nothing to conceal in connection with 
the St. Stephen’s affair. I could not be convinced, & could 
not convince myself, that there was any sufficient reason why 
I should leave my present post,—that was the whole of rt He 
So long as I cannot do one half of what I see waiting and 
ready to be done here, why should I go away in search of any 
“larger field”? Personal & family considerations all bind me 
to this neighborhood. I trust I should have grace enough to 
set these aside if there seemed to be sufficient cause for doing 
so, but in this instance I failed to see the sufficiency of the 
cause. Don’t you think there is something a little provincial 
in our American way of thinking that no man is well placed 
unless he is living in a large city, and that he is in duty bound 
to fret and wriggle until some how he can get himself recognized 
as “metropolitan”? ... 


The Rectory, Worcester, June 9, 1889. 
My Dear Miss Evcentia: 

Your kind remembrance of my little girls went to their 
hearts. Each of them rejoiced in the thought that her scarf 
really and truly came from Rome and cannot possibly be an 
“imitation.” Whether it is you or they that must be brought 
in guilty of smuggling is a question which I have not yet de- 

193 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


cided in my own mind, and unless the U. S. revenue officers take 
it up I think I shall let it rest, at least until your return. 
Miss Nellie has told you how opportunely your Easter card 
arrived. Let me again thank you for remembering me in so 
graceful a fashion. The other day we had our annual gather- 
ing of the infant scholars at the Rectory. On the cards of 
invitation we dignified the occasion by calling it a “garden 
party,” a euphemism at which those of the parents who have 
observed my front yard of late must have smiled. Not only 
is there no garden,—but by dint of assiduous foot-ball and 
base-ball practice Frank and his playmates have reduced what 
little turf there was to a hard earthy surface variegated only 
on wet days by those little mounds which the ingenious “angle- 
worm” for some inscrutable purpose turns up. However, to 
this “garden,” such as it was, the infants rallied to the number 
of one hundred and sixteen. We had the usual programme 
of amusements, the see-saw, the hammock, the suspended 
candy-bag, the foot-race, “On the green carpet” (this also a 
satire on my “lawn”’) and the ever popular fire-balloon. An 
additional attraction was offered in the shape of the Washburn 
goat harnessed to a two seated wagon, and guided by Rob. 
and Henry. Candidates for the ride were so numerous that 
we had to limit the trip to the distance between the two fences. 
Davies Taintor rebelled against this restriction, appearing 
to entertain views about occupancy of place similar to those 
attributed to General Grant; but the others acquiesced in the 
principle of rotation, and Davies was handed over to his nurse. 
When it came to forming the procession it was a pretty sight 
indeed. The Bartlett twins headed the line of march, and the 
column was so long that when it had completed the circuit of 
the rectory the rear was still visible to the van. Finally we 
got them all ranged in a row on the stone curbing of the fence 
which separates Dr, Bull’s grounds from mine. They filled 
the entire length of the curbing, and some four or five of them 
spilled over upon a settee. The exemplary quiet and order 
in which they sat waiting for their ice cream and cake might 
have shamed many an assembly of their elders,—the Chicago 


194 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


Convention for instance, of whose turbulent behaviour we hear 
distressing accounts. Finally they all went home safe and 
sound, with the exception of one boy who was hit full in the 
eye by the foot-ball. Him I pacified with a Fourth of July toy 
pistol and box of percussion caps,—so that I may say all 
went away happy. 

You are wondering, no doubt, why I should fill up my letter 
with trifling talk about so insignificant an affair; but what 
would be the use of my writing to you about matters of great 
public interest, the tidings of which have, perhaps, actually 
been flashed across the ocean since I began to write? All these 
things you will find served up for you in to-morrow’s paper, and 
they will have become an old story long before this tardy letter 
reaches you. But a glimpse of present day life in Pearl Street 
is a thing you cannot get by telegraph, and so, perhaps, after 
all, my modest little picture of the infants and their delights 
may be of more real refreshment to you than if I had dwelt 
ever so fully upon the excitement in which the politicians have 
been keeping us for the last week... . 

The Church misses you, and I trust that, in spite of all the 
cathedrals and basilicas, you do, now and then, just a little 
miss the Church,—yes even modest All Saints’, corner of 
Pleasant and Irving Sts., which has as yet neither treasures 
of art nor grand historic memories to entitle it to a place in 
the guide-books, but within whose walls, nevertheless, there 
breathes a certain atmosphere of home which is better than all 
the other things put together. 

With kindest remembrances to all your fellow travellers, 
I am ever your attached friend and minister, 

| W. R. Huntineron. 


Worcester, July 13: 1880. 
My Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

_. . Vacation has not begun for me and will not till August. 
Being a deputy to the Gen. Convention I shall have to be away 
from home all the month of October, and therefore do not feel 
like taking overmuch of absence during the summer. Indeed, 


195 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


I think the business of clerical vacations has, at least so far 
as city clergy are concerned, been somewhat overdone, and that 
we are destined to see a reaction. No other class of workers 
that I know of, except College professors, allow themselves 
or are allowed such long periods of inaction. A strong argu- 
ment, I admit, can be made out in favor of a “let-up” from 
mental exertion during the hot weather, but I am inclined to 
think that a permission to drop preaching for eight Sundays in 
summer would answer the purpose of protecting clergymen 
from the danger of breaking down. People sicken and die 
in our parishes as much in August as in any other month of 
the year, and it certainly is a scandal to have people in afflic- 
tion compelled to run about all over town, and actually exhaust 
the whole clerical roll of all denominations, before finding any- 
body to minister to their need. I write this in the character 
of a penitent, having myself, in times past, taken many and 
long vacations, including three trips to Europe. Please there- 
fore give me no credit for self-abrogation, only associate these 
lofty sentiments with the fact that just at the present moment 
my family are all away at Nahant and I keeping house in the 
Rectory with my cat. 


Worcester, Aug. 3: 1880. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 

- . . And this reminds me of a droll circular I received yes- 
terday from the Chairman of the Com. on Hospitality ap- 
pointed to arrange for the entertainment of us deputies. I 
am sorry I tore it up for it would have amused you. It seems 
that the New Yorkers are a little weary, as well they may be, 
of the financial burden which the frequent meeting of the Con- 
vention in their city entails on them, Accordingly this cir- 
cular begins by asking the deputy addressed whether his own 
diocese has made any provision for the payment of his ex- 
penses, and, if not, whether he desires that the Diocese of New 
York shall do so. 

This, you see, at once puts a man upon his pride. However, 
seeing that we are not all of us Dr. Tanners, and cannot sub- 


196 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


sist on a diet of pride only, the circular goes on to add that 
for all those who do throw themselves upon the charity of 
New York, and cannot be provided for at private houses, an 
allowance of fifty dollars apiece will be made. 

You can imagine the satisfaction I took in assuring Secre- 
tary Wildes that I should not have to be beholden to the tender 
mercies of his diocese. 

As to the Rev. . . . I scarcely know enough about him to 
be able to give an opinion of any value. He is, of course, a 
high Churchman (and so am I, for that matter, though they 
won’t acknowledge me), but he is not a ritualist, so far as I 
am informed, and is moreover a person of evident intelligence 
and refinement... . 


Newport, R. I. Aug. 20: 1880. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 

. . . I find Newport exerting its usual benumbing effect upon 
my faculties, although to outward appearance the weather is 
all that can be desired. The dwellers here assert that this 
semi-torpid good-for-nothing feeling is good for a man in va- 
cation, but I cannot bring myself to believe it. One is much 
more conscious of getting good in an atmosphere that braces 
one up and is constantly provoking endeavor of every sort. 
But, as a local physician here has remarked, whatever New- 
port may be for “grown ups,” there can be no question that it 
agrees with all children. My own are in a state of rude health 
& chronic delight. To crown all a pony has been discovered 
in the neighborhood which they are allowed to ride bare-back, 
—what are barouches and footmen compared with this? 

And this reference to the glories of the Avenue reminds 
me to say how hard it is to pass a judgment upon all that one 
sees going on in a place like this, and to feel sure that the 
judgment is not an uncharitable one. It is easy to denounce 
it all as worldliness, but who is to draw the line at the number 
of carriages a man may own or the number of buttons he may 
sew on to his livery without being accounted worldly. I sus- 
pect it all comes back to this, that without knowing our neigh- 
bor as an individual and knowing him very intimately too, it 


197 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


is not easy to decide whether he is blameworthy for lavish ex- 
penditure or not. The wholesale condemnation of entire 
classes of people for worldliness is certainly a mistake. 
(“Studies for sermons” I think I hear you saying, Let me 
get off upon another track.) ... 


To F. E. A. 
Newport, Sept. 1880. 
My Dear Frank: 

Your very cordial letter has been forwarded to me at this 
place, where the children and I are passing our vacation with 
my sister Mrs. Cooke. 

To speak across the gulf that has widened between us dur- 
ing these years cannot be anything but pleasant. The old 
sympathies that drew us so closely to one another in our 
college days have never left my heart, and never will do so; 
nor have I supposed for a moment that it was otherwise with 
you than with me. Only one earthly love ever came nearer 
to me than yours did. But it is the melancholy truth that 
we are enlisted for service in hostile armies, and I cannot see 
that so long as life lasts there is any prospect of our becoming 
very much to one another in the way of active friendship. The 
building I am laboring to raise you are eager to pull down; 
the temper you seek to propagate among the people, I en- 
deavor to discourage. Two men who stand to one another in 
this relation may mutually respect one another’s motives, but 
the expressions of this feeling which pass between them resemble 
too clearly the chivalrous courtesies of the battle-field to allow 
of their becoming a real basis of quiet happy intercourse. 
You and I want something better than a bare modus vivendi, 
if we are to dwell together at all, and though I fervently trust 
that such a something better will yet be found, I have ceased 
to look for it in this life present. . . 


Worcester, Sept. 14: 1880. 
My Dear Miss Merepirn: 
You must have thought it very rude of me not to acknowl- 
edge the receipt of Hutton’s book. . : 
198 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


“The Anglican Ministry” is curious reading, and in many 
ways exceedingly instructive. I should like to keep it awhile 
longer if you have no objection. Neither he nor Cardinal 
Newman (in the preface) seems to me fairly & satisfactorily 
to meet the argument for Anglicanism drawn from the combi- 
nation of these two facts; 1° that the Anglican Church must 
be credited with producing a type of saintly character which 
though very unlike the Roman ideal is still a most admirable 
creation in its way and one which Xtendom could ill spare, 
and 2° the apparently providential spread of the English © 
speaking race throughout all the earth, a spread which in- | 
volves the planting (whether the perpetuity or not remains 
to be seen) of Anglican religion almost everywhere. To one 
who looks for the “notes” of the Church not in the rubbish of 
antiquarian research so much as in great general principles 
and among the phenomena of the contemporary life of nations, 
this argument means a good deal. But is it not enough to 
make one turn Quaker forthwith to read a book like this where 
so much scholarship and critical acumen are wasted upon 
trifles? The disputants on both sides seem like blindfolded 
men groping about for objects they continually miss, when, 
at any moment, they might, if they would only pull the band- 
ages from their eyes man-fashion, see what they are reaching 
after instantly by common daylight. As if the Almighty ever 
would have allowed the question as to whether the great Eng- 
lish people are today Xtians or not Xtians, within the fold 
of the Holy Catholic Church or without it, to hinge upon such 
points as the validity of the baptism of Barlow or the sufficiency 
of the evidence of the lawful consecration of Parker! 

After various efforts I have at last succeeded in tearing 
away my family from Newport, that “Calypso’s Isle” as some- 
body nicknamed it the other day, where it is so easy to forget 
that any such unpleasant facts as hard labor, poverty and 
sorrow exist on the earth’s crust. I found my small girls dis- 
posed, at first, to turn up their noses at the prosaic look of 
Worcester streets after the glories of “The Avenue,” but they 
will soon slip back into home-spun ways and be as happy as 


199 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


ever under our provincial skies. An early glimpse at the 
“pomps and vanities” will I suspect do them no harm jn the long 
run. Catching up the thread of parish life comes as hard as 
ever this year, and there is a sense of unreality about the first 
two or three sermons which is painful. When the ship is fairly 
under way for the winter voyage I shall feel better, 


All Saints Rectory, Worcester, Nov. 4: 1880. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 

- . - Lam sorry you cannot see that I have decided rightly 
in the matter of St. Stephen’s parish. If anything could have 
made me swerve from my judgment already formed it would 
have been the exceeding cordiality and readiness of sympathy 
shown me by my Philadelphia friends. We New Englanders 
are an undemonstrative race and for that reason, perhaps, are 
the more appreciative of manifested kind feeling. 

But really I seldom in any of the choices of my life felt 
more sure of being right than in this one. St. Stephen’s 
parish as a parish is not one whit more important than the 
one I now hold (tell it not in the neighborhood of 10th St), 
indeed it does not seem to me to be nearly so capable of ex- 
pansion and increased vigor as All Saints, The great point 
urged seemed to be the importance of the “Charities,”—but 
they are in excellent hands already.. Rev. Mr. Barton seems 
to be the very man for the Warden of the Asylum, and the 
whole mechanism is running like a clock. Here, on the other 
hand, constructive as well as merely preservative work seems 
to invite me. I have in my head, and hope to have in brick 
and mortar, a Diocesan School for girls, a Children’s Hospital, 
and a Home for Nurses . . . and why should I go away from 
these attractive possibilities to seek rest in the comfortable 
oversight of things already achieved? As to the matter of 
general influence in Phila., that is all very vague & dubious. 
“Omne ignotum pro magnifico,” and they would soon find 
out upon closer acquaintance that I was not all their fancy 
had pictured me. Here they know my weak points and have 
learned how to put up with them. 

200 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


Moreover, here is this most unlooked for, I may say mar- 
vellous opportunity which God’s Providence has put in my 
way of helping to make the Prayer Book a manual of religion 
better adapted to American needs than heretofore it has been. 
Between ourselves, I do not hesitate to say that I think the 
Secretaryship of the Joint Com. on securing for the Prayer 
Book “liturgical enrichment and increased flexibility of use” 
a more important charge than any rectorship in the land. 
For the next three years, should God spare my life, I mean 
to throw myself heart and soul into this great task, and it is 
hard to see how I should be furthered in doing so by taking 
charge of a new and large City parish. 

Looking back over this letter I am ashamed to see how much 
it is taken up with myself and my affairs, but the great kind- 
ness of the friends who have urged St. Stephen’s upon me 
seems to throw me, as it were, into the defensive and to compel 
me to “show cause.” . 


Worcester, Dec. 23, 1880. 
My Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

Thank you for sending me the “Trinity Catechism.” It be- 
gins with a blunder in Biblical psychology and ends with a 
sneer. Nevertheless there are some good things about the 
plan. 

Young Protestant Episcopalians in these parts (I don’t 
know how it is in Philadelphia) grow up with very little knowl- 
edge of their own Church, its history, methods & aims. How- 
ever, perhaps it is better not to have them indoctrinated at 
all than taught so many things that “a Christian ought (not) 
to know or believe” as this book teaches. 

Only think of the 4,000 little controversialists (more or less) 
who will be let loose upon New York annually if Dr. Dix’s 
wishes as expressed in the preface are carried out... . 


The Rectory, Dec. 31, 1880. 
My Dear Mr. Pratt: 
Your very kind and affectionate letter of this morning is 
received. Nothing in life gives me more pleasure than to 


201 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


know that my services as a pastor are really soothing and 
helpful to my people when they are in sorrow. I am conscious 
of so great deficiencies in this respect that it is especially 
grateful to my feelings to be assured, as you assure me, that 
my poor efforts have not been wholly without some good effect. 
For this very reason it pains me to be asked to receive any- 
thing like a payment in money for services which come strictly 
within the range of my ministerial duty, and which, as I have 
said, it is a pleasure to render,—so far as the word pleasure 
can be used in such a connection. 

If, therefore, you make no objection, I will invest this money 
in a valuable work of reference for our Parish Library, and, 
after having had it properly inscribed, will place it on the 
shelves for the use of those who knew Edward, and of many 
others who will learn to know of him in this way. I will 
undertake that the book shall be one which his own refined 
and delicate taste would have approved, and the inscription 
shall be of the simplest. 

Feeling sure that you will appreciate this scruple of mine 
now that I have stated it in full, I remain 

Your attached minister and friend. 


Worcester, Jan. 12: 1881. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 

Your delicacy of feeling in not attempting in any degree 
to bias my decision in a matter in which your near friends 
were interested has been fully appreciated. Mr. Biddle has 
put himself to so much trouble that I have felt (as I wrote 
him) almost a sense of mortification at finding myself obliged 
to disappoint him. The attractions to St. James’s were cer- 
tainly of the strongest, and not the least among them the 
prospect of hearty & effective codperation that seemed to be 
held out. But I never could have looked a St. Stephen’s man, 
nor indeed my own conscience, square in the face had I ac- 
cepted the one call after having so recently declined the other 
for the reasons I did. Next week a matter far more im- 
portant is to be settled, namely, the probable outcome of the 

202 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


effort to make the Prayer Book a better thing of its kind. 
The “enrichment” committee is to have its first meeting on 
the 18th in a room adjoining the Ch. of the Holy Communion 
(Dr. Muhlenberg’s old Church,—a happy augury) and, then 
& there, the general scope & limit of the movement are likely 
to be determined. I feel the greatest solicitude about the 
issue, aS you may readily imagine; and shall be much cast 
down if things go ill. The President of the House of Deputies 
(as you may remember) appointed on the Committee of four- 
teen only six who voted for the measure. Of the other eight 
some were men who had voted “Nay” and some were absentees. 
The Bishops, however, appointed their portion of the Com. 
by ballot, and are strongly & favorably represented. ... 


Worcester, Feb. 16: 1881. 
My Dear Miss Merevitu: 

. . . Since my return I have been busy at intervals in mak- 
ing over for the Am. Ch. Review the Essay on Pr. Book Revision 
which I sent you in mss. last year. The Editor of the Review 
proposes to print a certain no. of copies in pamphlet form and 
I am inclined to think that one of these would answer the pur- 
pose of a “prospectus” much better than any one of the brief 
official papers that have thus far been printed for the use of 
the Committee. I will see that an early impression is put 
in Miss Field’s hands and I look for very valuable help to come 
to us through her mediation. With two confirmation lectures 
a week on my hands and Lent approaching I find it difficult 
to get much leisure for this deeply important work, but when 
the warm weather comes the pressure of parochial duties will 
slacken and I shall have time to dig into the liturgical treasures 
that have been accumulating on my book-shelves. 

How much you must all have been feeling about poor Dr. 
Washburn. Strangely enough I did not learn of his death 
until after the funeral. The ranks of our clergy do not hold 
a man who can precisely fill his place. He was unique. If 
the “Churchman” for this week falls in your way look for a few 
lines about him with my initials appended... . 


203 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Worcester, March 24, 1881. 
My Dear Miss MerepitTu: 

. - - | wonder if you have seen John Henry Hopkins’s article 
in the March “Contemporary” on The Lay Element in Eng- 
land and America. It contains a slur on Dean Stanley ... 
but taken as a whole it is a very clever piece of writing. John 
Henry, you know, is a ritualist of long standing, and it is an 
open question among his friends whether in his make-up 
subtilty or impudence most predominates. In the article in 
the “Contemporary” both of these characteristics are strongly 
marked. Nevertheless I liked it so well that I bought an extra 
copy of the Review to lend about among my vestrymen for 
their better enlightenment. Our high ecclesiastics have as a 
rule such a mealy-mouthed way of talking of and to the 
English brethren, that it rejoices my Yankee soul to find one 
man, and he a high-Churchman, ready and willing to tell them 
the unvarnished truth about some of their ridiculous ways. 

Can you help me about a matter in which I am greatly in- 
terested ;—to-wit, finding the proper person to be at the head 
of a high-grade school for girls? For years it has been my 
ambition (partly a selfish one, having three girls to educate) 
to establish such a school here. It would be a mixed board- 
ing and day school,—the day element in excess at the start. It 
is easy enough to hire good tutors and assistant teachers, 
but to find a first-rate head is far from easy and I am deter- 
mined not to begin until I see my way to this sine qua non. 

I want it to be a Church though not a Churchy School ;— 
something such a school as I imagine Miss Porter’s at Farming- 
ton to be, only with Prayer-Book substituted for Westminster 
Catechism influence, a school that shall aim to transform 
through personal influence as much as by “book learning” the 
average N. England girl into a wide-minded, large hearted 
Christian woman. Pray tell me whether you know anybody 
“sufficient to these things.” 


Worcester, Mch. 29: 1881. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 
- . . Your success with the Dean’s letter (which does indeed 
204 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


look as if it had been struck by lightning) is simply marvellous. 
I have ventured upon a few conjectural emendations, but think 
you are correct in your reading horses & chariots. . . . I am 
glad to find that both he and Dr. Plumptre are disposed to 
see promise in this liturgical movement and stand ready to 
helpins h 

Neale’s volume I have, but was not acquainted with the 
prayer you have been good enough to copy. It is very beauti- 
ful, but if I may so say, too ingenious to wear well in popular 
use. It may seem strange ground to take, but it is true. I 
think that some devotional forms have too much verbal ex- 
quisiteness, too much gracefulness of phrase to allow of their 
being properly inserted in a Common Prayer. Under this 
head I should be disposed to class “Lord support me all the 
day long of this troublous life etc.”—which is a perfect gem 
after its kind, but over-full of imagery for permanent value. 

My liturgical library is growing rapidly, the last acqui- 
sition being the Marquis of Bute’s translation of the Breviary. 
The mischief of this particular variety of bibliomania is its 
expensiveness, but this is in a measure counterbalanced by 
the fact that there is a limit to the number of books on liturgics 
it is really desirable to own. 

“Gold Dust” continues to enjoy much popularity in these 
parts. “Divine Breathing” I have not seen. Did I put you 
on the track of Chas. (Tennyson) Turner’s Sonnets? I can- 
not remember. ‘The taste for sonnets (as for olives) comes not 
by nature, but, if you happen to have acquired it, this little 
volume could not fail to delight you. 


Worcester, May 11: 1881. 
My Dear Miss Merepitu: 

I have written both to Dean Stanley and to Dr. Plumtre 
thanking them for their valuable contributions and soliciting 
more aid of the same sort. The April No. of the “Church Re- 
view” is out at last (the 2nd week in May) and before long I 
hope to be able to send you my paper on the Liturgical Revi- 
sion question in pamphlet form. Of course you are not ex- 


205 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


pected to agree with everything in it, but if the main drift of 
it commends itself to a mind of the intelligence of yours, I shall 
be pleased. The cause of Revision is all but hopeless, and 
yet for this very reason there is a charm about the task of try- 
ing to bring it about. The alleged impossibility of anything 
piques one’s courage. In your verbal criticism of one of Dr. 
Plumptre’s collects for Easter Tuesday I quite concur. The 
general level of his tone is however very high, and you have 
only to contrast the language of his translations with that in 
the English Breviary lately edited by the Marquess of Bute to 
see how the former excels. .. . | 

As to the subject matter treated, that is too large a ques- 
tion to be opened at the close of a letter. I may simply say, 
in brief, that if “‘the sacrifice of the death of Christ”? means 
anything at all, it must, in my judgment, mean vastly more 
than our Broad Church friends are in the habit of making it 
mean. 

The Rectory, 
June 2: 1881. 
My Dear Mrs. Wurtcoms: 

The evidences of attachment that have come to me from all 
sides this week have touched me deeply; and I should be hard- 
hearted indeed if, in making up my mind upon this subject, I 
were to allow no weight to the argument drawn from affection. 
To tell the truth I have been sorely perplexed. As a pastor 
I am confident that I can be more useful here than elsewhere, 
as a preacher more useful elsewhere than here,—and so the 
scale-beam seems to lie even. I thank you very much for your 
kind words, and beg you to believe that in any event I shall 
always be 

Most sincerely yours. 


Worcester, July 5, 1881. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 
The event at Washington is keeping us all in anxious sus- 
pense here, as everywhere else. It seems almost unfeeling to 
write even a private letter without making reference to what 


206 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


has happened, and giving expression to the universal sense of 
shock. 

I realized on Sunday something of what it must mean to 
live, as journalists do, under the continual necessity of utter- 
ing offhand some comment on the last noteworthy thing that 
has happened “up to going to press.” Happily the moral of 
the crime, if a crime may be said to have a moral, was not far to 
seek. If the President’s sufferings, by making odious the prox- 
imate cause of them, serve to abate, in any measure, this office- 
seeking fever which is fast becoming our rabies Americana, they 
certainly will not have been in vain. Only last Thursday, in 
the Sanders Theatre at Cambridge, I listened to Wendell Phil- 
lips eloquently defending, in the face of the ® B K Society, 
Russian nihilists and Irish conspirators. I wonder if he would 
have at all qualified his remarks could he have foreseen this 
attempt at assassination on our own soil. Probably not, for 
his one aim seemed to be to flaunt his most extreme notions 
before our eyes, and to win an applause that should be the 
more precious for the very fact that it was wrung from dis- 
sentients. The dinner on ® B K day was a very pleasant 
affair as it almost always is. Joseph Choate who is running 
over with wit and drollery presided, and there were speeches by 
Dr. Holmes, Edw. Hale and Geo. Wm. Curtis. By a tradi- 
tional usage reporters are banished from the scene and as a 
consequence men speak with vastly more freedom and ease of 
manner than on most other occasions. Of late years we have 
greatly missed Mr. Lowell who served his apprenticeship in the 
art of after-dinner speaking (at which he now labors so suc- 
cessfully in England) under the tutelage of @ B K. 

I am glad you found my essay in liturgics at all interesting. 
Dr. Dix has driven me to the verge of despair as respects the 
whole question of revision, by his published lectures on the First 
Prayer Book of Edward the VIth. The pamphlet is inter- 
penetrated with the very quintessence of ecclesiastical Bour- 
bonism, and bodes no good to my poor little movement for which 
I had dared to hope so much... . 

All this reminds me of the Revised N. Testament, about which 


207 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


you ask a question. That it is more accurate than the K. 
James Version there can be no doubt; but that it is destined 
to supersede that venerable text in public use I should hesitate 
to affirm. The trouble with the Revised Version (if one may 
be pardoned the paradox) is that it is too accurate,—that is to 
say, it is bald. An English critic has hit the point exactly by 
saying that if the revisers had only been content to translate 
instead of insisting upon construing, their work would have been 
more acceptable. ... 


Worcester, Dec. 26, 1881. 
My Dear Miss MerepitH: 

. . . Yesterday was saddened for us by the news of the death 
of my father-in-law, Dr. Edward Reynolds. He was eighty- 
eight years old, and had been in failing health for several 
months. He was the most genial of men, and thoroughly a 
Christian. Of all the days in the year I think he would him- 
self have chosen Christmas Day as the best time to die. His 
death was painless. 

My children were very much attached to their grand-father 
and well they might be for he carried sympathy with childhood 
further into old age than any man I ever knew. Nahant will 
not seem to them without him the place it has always been. . 


Worcester, 
September 26, 1883. 
My Dear Dr. Dyer: 

I cannot tell you what satisfaction your letter has given me. 
Nothing that has come to me since the Report was issued has 
pleased me so much. The sources from which opposition is to 
be expected in Convention are, in my judgment, the following: 

(a) The Ritualists who are disappointed at not finding their 
demands conceded. 

(b) Such Broad-Church men as prefer, along with the Ritu- 
alists, the present anarchy of usage to any change that might 
involve a better enforcement of the rubrics, even though the 
new rubrics gave larger liberty than before. 

(c) Evangelicals who let their fear of High Church en- 

208 








GRACE CHURCH 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


croachment blind their eyes to the fact that these proposed 
additions are really full of Christ. 

If your strength allows I wish very much that you would try 
to bring our Virginia friends to look at the matter in the same 
enlightened way in which you do. Judge Sheffey, as you have 
probably noticed, withholds his name from the Report. (So 
also, and the contrast is curiously significant, does Dr. Harri- 
son of Troy.) A few words from you would, I think, “open 
the eyes of these men.” 

Really this movement is a movement to nationalize the Church. 
My interest in it and labor in its behalf have been due to an 
earnest desire to promote unity among the Christian people of 
America. While the Enriched book is more English (in one 
sense ) than ever, it is also more thoroughly American than ever, 
as I think you must have discerned. 

It is strange that the Virginia men cannot see that by 
diversifying and ennobling and magnifying the Daily Office, as 
in this book we do, we are putting the most effectual barrier 
possible in the way of that restoration of the “Mass” which is 
the grand aim of the Romanizers. 


Rome, Feb. 16th, 1884. 
My Dear Cot. WasHBurn: 

Your letter dated from the Senate Chamber reached me a few 
days ago and was most welcome. The account of the contro- 
versy over the election sermon was both interesting and in- 
structive. The alliance between liberals and R. Catholics, 
though apparently absurd has a philosophical basis, and has 
been noticed in the political life of England time and again. 
I was forcibly reminded of you and of your visit to these 
memorable scenes when passing through the Riviera on my way 
to Rome. ‘To be sure I met no such extraordinary fellow travel- 
lers on the Corniche Road as it was your good luck to encounter, 
but I appreciated the fidelity of your picture of the scenery 
of the Riviera, & just missed being able to set off George Mac- 
Donald against your William Black, for he was in the next 
house to us at Bordighera. How fully Rome meets the most 


209 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


glowing anticipations one may have formed of it; there is noth- 
ing like it on earth, never has been and never will be. The 
troubles in Egypt have led me to give up my plan of going to 
that land still more ancient than this, but, on the whole, I do 
not regret the blockade of the Nile, seeing as I do how much 
more there is in Italy than I can possibly do justice to even if 
I spend my whole leave of absence here. You will I am sure 
be glad to learn that since settling down in Rome I have noticed 
a decided change for the better in the state of my health. 

Up to a recent date there had been no very marked improve- 
ment, but the outlook now is much more cheerful. This is the 
first day of the Carnival. The feast has been shorn of many 
of its ancient glories & the Romans feel especially aggrieved 
in that the Municipality has forbidden the old time race of 
Barbary horses in the Corso; but the practice was really a 
cruel one and S. P. Q. R. is but acting the part of S. P. C. A. 
in abolishing the custom. 

The excavations in the Forum are most interesting. Within 
only a few weeks they have unearthed on the South side ten or 
twelve magnificent marble statues presumably of the Vestal 
Virgins, as they were found on the site of their house. Arche- 
ology is doing as much to rehabilitate ancient historical be- 
liefs as the other sciences have done to discredit them. Have 
no fears for the Christian faith and none for the Christian 
Church. They will stand. Meanwhile each of us in his own 
lot & place must try to fortify & defend them with such ability 
as God giveth. 

My kindest regards to all your household. 


Rome, March 28, 1884. 
My Dear Miss Acnzs: 

. . . IT am just completing my fifth week, and even of the 
more famous sights which every traveller is bound to see on 
pain of being laughed at for his negligence after his return, 
even of these “stock” shows, there are a good number not yet 
“crossed off.” This last phrase I borrow from Hawthorne, 
who, in his Italian Note Book has something to this effect,— 

210 


THE CHURCH IDEA 


“Pio Nono is not a very striking looking man, still I am glad 
to have seen him to-day because now I can cross him off.” Yes- 
terday I crossed off, not Pio Nono,—that has been done for him 
once for all, but Leo XIII his successor. By great good luck, 
I happened to get hold of a ticket admitting me to the Vatican 
on the occasion of a consistory held for the making of a new 
Cardinal. The procession was a most gorgeous spectacle, and 
the image of the poor old Pope borne down the long Sala on 
the shoulders of twelve of his attendants is photographed on 
my memory for ever. The Cardinals are not quite what one 
could wish in point of personal appearance, Cardinal Howard 
an Englishman being the most wholesome looking one among 
them. Our American House of Bishops is far from being an 
ideal body of men in respect to dignity of appearance, but as 
compared with the Sacred College they are “as Hyperion to a 
Satyr.” All my home letters have been full of ice and snow. 
Here Nature is kinder. I have not seen snow, except on far 
distant mountain tops, since coming to the Continent. Never- 
theless give me the N. England climate, year in and year out, 
rather than the alternate chill & fever of an Italian day. Pray 
remember me kindly to all your family and believe me always 
Faithfully yours, 
W. R. HuntincrTon. 


London, July 18, 1884. 
My Dear Mrs. Pratt: | 

. . . We have now been in London a full week, and have 
found much to enjoy. After all, there is no city likeit. Paris 
may be more gay and Rome more venerable, but London is 
London, and it more and more impresses the imagination the 
oftener one revisits it. Last night, through the kindness of 
a friend, Frank and I found ourselves among the few favored 
ones who gained admission to the gallery of the House of Peers. 
The occasion was the final debate, or what is likely to prove 
the final debate, on the Franchise bill, and the excitement was 
at fever heat. Most of the more famous political peers took 
part in the discussion, among them the Earl of Shaftesbury, the 
211 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Dukes of Norfolk and Somerset, Lords Cadogan, Wemyss, 
Aberdeen, and Dunraven, and chiefest of all the Marquis of 
Salisbury, who is the head and front of the Tory party. You 
have, I daresay, heard all about the controversy which is wag- 
ing now between the two Houses of Parliament. As an Amer- 
ican I am bound to approve, and do approve, the principles 
of Mr. Gladstone’s bill, but I confess to a great deal of sym- 
pathy with Lord Salisbury in his contention that the House of 
Lords had better die outright than submit to survive only on the 
condition that it shall always vote, on all important questions, 
Just as the other House may wish it to vote. What gave in- 
terest to last night’s debate was the fact that then and there 
the Lords were called upon to decide whether they would or 
would not yield to popular pressure, and one could not but 
admire the courage which led them to declare that they would 
risk their continuance as a privileged order, rather than stul- 
tify their already recorded action. .. . 


Cologne, July 8, 1884. 
My Dear 

It was very pleasant to hear from you again, but the letter 
you spoke of as having been written or as being about to be 
written by your mother has never reached me. I shall hope to 
receive it with the next parcel that comes from Baring 
Brothers. . 

Germany seems to be all alive with activity, but I confess to 
having the same aversion to the prevailing “militarism” of the 
country of which, you remember, Gov. Bullock spoke so bitterly 
in the lecture he gave in All Saints? Chapel on the occasion of 
his return from Europe. Some very interesting items of Wor- 
cester news have reached me of late. I am glad that the Rec- 
tory has fallen into friendly hands. If I thought that the 
sale of the house meant the relinquishment of the purpose of 
maintaining a rectory I should be very sorry. I hope to live 
to see a rectory built adjoining the Church and in harmony 
with its architecture. . . . 





212 


Vill 


GRACE CHURCH, NEW YORK 


HE rectorship of Grace Church, New York, 
was a challenge to Dr. Huntington. His 


friends and well-wishers looked upon it as such. 
He felt it to be so himself. As far as the parish was 
concerned, he had every ground for confidence. He 
had worked out his ideals of parish organization and 
development, and knew their workability and applica- 
bility everywhere. He was eager to prove, on a larger 
scale than he had heretofore known, the soundness of 
his conclusions. The challenge lay in the parish’s rela- 
tion to the community. It was in what was, after all, 
a provincial city that his success in this respect had so 
far been shown. Was he to be equal to the metropoli- 
tan opportunity, so that the parish, with its minister, 
should be not only what it had previously been in the 
life of New York, but become increasingly a center of 
helpfulness and influence, in the expanding city, and in 
the rapidly changing circumstances of an old and down- 
town parish? 

It was his good fortune that there was nothing to be 
undone, no mistakes to be corrected, nor prejudices to 
be removed, no tearing down and clearing away to be 
undertaken, before he began to build. His call was to 

213 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


build wisely on the strong foundations which had been 
laid. Indeed, Grace Church had been a peculiarly 
fortunate parish. In the half-century immediately 
preceding, it had had but two rectors, both men of 
strong character and wise leadership. Dr. Thomas 
House Taylor had conducted the affairs of the parish 
for thirty-three years, along the lines of an older day 
and generation, with zeal and devotion, welding the 
people together, by untiring ministration and instruc- 
tion, into a band of earnest Christians and faithful 
churchmen. Dr. Henry Codman Potter, now made 
Assistant Bishop of New York, had transformed the 
parish into a working parish of the modern type, con- 
secrated week-days and Sundays, through its manifold 
"activities, to the service of the whole community. 

Dr. Huntington was not without experience of the 
trials which come to every new-comer into a parish 
rectorship. No one understood this better than his 
predecessor, Bishop Potter, who writes to him soon 
after his taking up the work at Grace Church: “It 
has been a source of very keen mortification to me 
to learn that people who have assumed to be special 
friends of mine have obtruded themselves upon you 
with counsel or criticism which was as ill-bred as 
it was uncalled for. I hope you will placidly dis- 
regard it and administer your own parish accord- 
ing to your own judgment. I received a good deal 
of the same sort of advice when I came to New York, 
and enjoyed the usual annoyances of a newcomer to 
Whom everybody thought himself or herself compe- 

214 


GRACE CHURCH, NEW YORK 


tent to give counsel, but though I was a much younger 
man than you are I did not regard the ‘use’ or the tradi- 
tion of the Rev. Thomas House Taylor, D.D. as either 
divinely inspired or intrinsically immutable. You have 
been far more patient with mine than they deserve; al- 
though sanctioned (after a fashion) by the bishop they 
were some of them extra-rubrical if not un-rubrical, and 
I have rejoiced that in these days of lawlessness you set 
us all an example not of bondage to somebody else’s in- 
dividual preferences or fancies but of respect for the 
law of the Church. I used to go and open my heart to 
Washburn about the little stings and gnats that vexed 
me in Grace Church and wish myself back in dear old 
Boston. ‘Remember, my young friend,’ said the Doc- 
tor, ‘that there are no sinners in Boston. We brought 
you here not because it was heaven but because minis- 
ters are needed in a place which has so many more ele- 
ments of the other place.’ ”’ 

This letter is indicative of the Sorption under- 
standing between rector and bishop, which was des- 
tined to grow with the years. Bishop Potter came 
to depend upon the rector of Grace Church, upon his 
careful judgment and his keen insight, and in prac- 
tically every crisis of his episcopacy turned to him un- 
reservedly. At the very beginning of their New York 
relations, soon after the writing of the letter quoted 
above, he wrote to Dr. Huntington’s sister, Mrs. Cook, 
saying: “Before I go to bed to-night, after a three 
days’ Convention, I want to tell you that your brother 
made the finest speech on the floor of that body to-day 

215 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


that I have ever heard there. I wish you could have 
heard it, and I wish you could have watched its pro- 
found impression. In every characteristic to be de- 
sired in such an argument it was alike masterly and 
conclusive. New York is debtor to Massachusetts for 
a great gift.” 

Dr. Huntington was very far from being parochially 
minded. During his years at Grace Church, New 
York, he served his city and his diocese, and also labored 
in a large way for the general Church. At the same 
time, he realized very clearly that it was the parish 
which must first of all be strongly built and from which, 
as a center, any larger influence must radiate. Dur- 
ing all the years of his rectorship, he labored devotedly 
and untiringly in the work of preacher and pastor, and 
in scheming for the development and strengthening of 
the parish as an institution. 

It cannot be maintained that the rector of Grace 
Church was a great preacher. He never attained to 
the fire and abandon which characterized those who are 
the greatest preachers of the world. His very excel- 
lence as a debater precluded the possibility of his being 
a very great preacher. He was without question the 
most masterly debater that the Episcopal Church has 
ever known. No one has ever appeared to approach 
him in his greatest moments on the floor of the General 
Convention. Now, the debater is always, so to speak, 
outside of, and above, his truth. He marshals his argu- 
ments as a general marshals his men, and knows when 
and where and how to strike. He is completely posses- 

216 


GRACE CHURCH, NEW YORK 


sor of his resources and of his message. The great 
preacher on the other hand, is possessed by his truth, 
and the power of his eloquence depends upon the meas- 
ure in which he himself is mastered by his message. 
This much being granted, that Dr. Huntington was not 
a great preacher, it is to be acknowledged that he was 
a good preacher, one whose sermons to his people, year 
after year, helped them in apprehending the Christian 
verities and in winning courage in the living of the 
Christian life. His mind being an ordered one, his 
preaching was not of the haphazard variety. He 
planned wisely to develop the thinking and character 
of his hearers week by week. In his method of pre- 
sentation he was naturally greatly influenced by the 
symbolic quality of his mind. This method of presen- 
tation, at its best, helped by vivid pictures and symbols 
to bring the truth home and to make it easier for the 
hearers to retain the lesson and the inspiration. More 
than that, there were times when the method of symbol 
merged into something higher, and partook of the seer’s 
vision and the poet’s inspiration; for he possessed the 
spirit of a true poet. At such times he spoke with 
authority, and there was an appealing beauty in his 
utterance which lingered in the mind and brought heal- 
ing to the soul. At its worst, this method was some- 
times very baffling, and the message itself was in dan- 
ger of being lost in what was, so to speak, a merciless 
elaboration of the quadrilaterals and triangles of his 
thinking. Taken as a whole, the preaching of Dr. 
Huntington served to emphasize the gracious sympa- 
217 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


thies of his pastoral administration, and hundreds of 
parishioners of all the years of his ministry at Grace 
Church will testify to the expectancy with which they 
went to hear his weekly message, and to the comfort 
and strength which they carried away for the meeting 
of the tasks which confronted them in the days to 
follow. 

A constant listener at Grace Church says of his 
preaching, “No matter on what subject Dr. Hunting- 
ton preached, historical, philosophical, or even political, 
at the end he always brought you to the feet of Christ 
and left you there.” 

The press-notices which appeared after his death 
were unanimous in calling attention to the way in which 
his life had afforded an expression of the permanent 
value of the Christian ministry as a service which in its 
old-time simplicity and dignity, without need of any 
bolstering by sensationalism, attracted and helped all 
sorts and conditions of men in their various needs. 
“Canary birds,” said one editorial writer, “did not sing 
in his choir, men did not smoke in his pews, moving pic- 
tures were not flashed from his pulpit; he was content 
to preach the Word of God and he preached it with ear- 
nestness and vigor. Men went to hear him. Men are 
not done with religion or the church as so many pessi- 
mists seem to think. The success of clergymen like 
Dr. Huntington, and there are many like him, in at- 
tracting men to their churches and holding them there 
by simple preaching of the Word of God, proves they 
are not.” 

218 


GRACE CHURCH, NEW YORK 


As a pastor, Dr. Huntington was untiring in his de- 
votion where there was any call upon him in case of 
sickness or trouble; and as is often the case in a great 
city, there were many who went to him who were not 
in any real sense members of the parish which he served, 
and who testified to the help which he gave them; some- 
times guidance in perplexity, and again new courage 
for the carrying on of difficult tasks. 

No one would ever have thought of calling Dr. Hunt- 
ington a “diner out.” But especially in the later years 
of his ministry in Grace Church, he was a welcome 
guest at many dinner-tables. ‘Those who had really 
known him, had always known that in spite of his re- 
serve, and in spite of certain Puritan restrictions which 
had always marked his personal and family life, he was 
nevertheless possessed of a genuine sense of fun, and 
of an aptitude for the enjoyment of social intercourse. 
He had a dependable sense of humor, and he had, in 
addition, a ready wit, which he kept in good control, 
and seasoned invariably with kindliness. He was suc- 
cessful, in social intercourse, when not technically min- 
istering, in being, nevertheless, always a minister of the 
Gospel. His dignity, though it might become gracious 
and tinged with playfulness, was never lost, and the 
ultimate earnestness of his purpose was so revealed in 
his conversation, even when it was lightest, that the 
chief business of his life was never forgotten by those 
with whom he came in contact. He was a helpful illus- 
tration of the possibility of the prophet’s being always 
a prophet, and a minister always a minister, without the 

219 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


necessity of being removed from the affairs of men, or 
in their esteem always conceived of as occupying a 
pedestal. 

Being a natural born administrator, he gave himself 
to the task, after assuming the rectorship of Grace 
Church, of planning for the future development of that 
parish, and of bringing into being the well-rounded 
conception of what a great parish in a metropolitan cen- 
ter ought to be. 

The first problem was that of making the beautiful 
church building, with its commanding location on Broad- 
Way, a real center of worship for the life of the city. 
There were two things which, in the mind of the rector, 
ought to be accomplished. One was to bind ever more 
closely to itself the parish’s well-established constitu- 
ents. ‘he other was to throw open the doors of the 
Church to all the people of the city. The pew-owners 
must realize and rejoice in the rights which were theirs 
as members of the ancient parish, and at the same time 
all the people must realize that the Church was their 
very own. The combining of these two ambitions was 
naturally not without its difficulties. One of the 
methods in the development was the gradual change of 
the pews from proprietary pews to free pews, which 
should be at the same time memorial gifts on the part 
of their family possessors. This process, while success- 
ful, was naturally a slow process. Another method, 
which largely met the double uses of the parish church, 
was the ordering of the Sunday services by the estab- 
lishment of two sets of services, a morning and evening 

220 


GRACE CHURCH, NEW YORK 


service which was more especially for the parishioners 
or pew-holders, and another pair of morning and eve- 
ning services which were designed for the whole people. 
The great choir, which in itself contributed so largely 
to the parish’s fame, sang at the morning service, which 
was peculiarly the parish service, and at the evening 
service for the people. On week-days there was of 
course, no problem presented as between the two 
groups to whom the parish ministered. All that was 
needed was to contrive in every way to make the church 
an open church with many opportunities to which any 
people might freely come who were drawn within its 
doors. 

One of the ways, as has already been suggested, by 
which the parish was to serve the people of the city, was 
through the maintenance of really great religious music. 
Dr. Huntington himself had no knowledge of music, 
nor did music make any real appeal to his nature, ac- 
cording to his own confession, the art of music being 
to him a sealed book. He was wise, nevertheless, in 
knowing how great a part it ought to play in the life of 
the parish, and in leaving the conduct of it wholly in 
the hands of a competent leader, who should proceed 
with sympathy, but without interference on the rector’s 
part, in the building up of a great choir. Dr. Hunt- 
ington, while without knowledge of the art of music, 
was possessed of a remarkable knowledge of the art of 
worship, for the development of which he had an unerr- 
ing faculty. The combination at Grace Church of 
these two arts, each one under competent leadership, 

221 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


brought about results of great significance. The wor- 
ship at Grace Church drew people of all sorts and con- 
ditions to be participators in it. 

Dr. Huntington thought that the music of the parish 
could not be adequately developed without the estab- 
lishment at the church itself of a choir school for the 
boys of the choir. 'To the working of this plan he gave 
careful thought, and step by step brought it to pass 
that there was established at Grace Church a school, 
which, as a school, was of high quality, for the education 
of youth, and which at the same time kept the boys 
within the precincts of the church, where they could 
have daily training in voice culture and in the render- 
ing of the services. There gradually grew up at Grace 
Church the first choir school in this country, one des- 
tined to become a model for any other schools of this 
type which might subsequently be established. 

The music of the services, which in this way was de- 
veloped in the parish church, became music of the high- 
est distinction. No criticism of its excellence has ever 
been made, unless it be the criticism that it was too ex- 
cellent, and of a quality too refined to serve the every- 
day needs of worshiping congregations. 

In a preface written in 1909 for the “Grace Church 
Hymnal” compiled by Mr. Helfenstein, for so many 
years the choir-master, Dr. Huntington says: _ 


It is with the single thought of religious helpfulness that my 
dear friend, the compiler of this Collection, has done his work. 
He has aimed to bring together such tunes as will, in his judg- 

222 


GRACE CHURCH, NEW YORK 


ment, enable Congregations to sing their way through the 
Hymnal of the Church with the least possible difficulty. His 
work is not that of either a theorist or an amateur. He has 
not aimed at collecting the tunes that people ought to sing. 
He has collected those which he has actually heard them sing, 
and, therefore, knows that they can sing. And this, moreover, 
has been done without yielding a jot either to sentimentalism 
or to vulgarity, those foes of sobriety and reverence, 

As one “that occupieth the room of the unlearned” with 
respect to all things musical, I should stoutly have refused Mr. 
Helfenstein’s request that I write this Preface, had not grati- 
tude compelled. I could not refuse a little to one to whom I 
owed much. That his Book may accomplish for other churches 
the transforming work which his skilled hands and quick per- 
ceptions have done for Grace, is the best wish I could wish him. 
And I wish it. 


One of the developments resulting from the combina- 
tion of the arts of music and worship within the parish 
of Grace Church was the plan for the evening service, 
sometimes known as the Grace Church Services. These 
services, designed by Dr. Huntington in accordance 
with the provisions suggested in the Revised Prayer 
Book, were made up of selections from the Bible and 
the Book of Common Prayer combined in such a way 
as effectively to present the teachings of the recurring 
seasons of the Christian year. The music for these 
services was selected, and in certain striking instances 
specially composed, by the choir-master of the parish. 
In one of these services, that designed for the Epiphany 
season, there appears the use of the Beatitudes. In the 
Advent service was introduced the Promises to the 
Churches from the Revelation, and in the Easter and 

223 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Ascension services the Heavenly Promises from the 
same book. 

One of the convictions which the parish had won, 
even before the advent of Dr. Huntington as rector, 
was that the parish’s service to the city of New York 
could not be wholly fulfilled through the agency of the 
parish church. As far back as 1860 Grace Church 
Chapel had been built on Fourteenth Street. It had 
been burned in 1872 and rebuilt in 1876. The growing 
work at this chapel necessitated the erection of a larger 
building twenty years later, during Dr. Huntington’s 
rectorship, still on East Fourteenth Street. The im- 
portance of this work was constantly emphasized by the 
rector of the parish, and it was sympathetically and 
generously maintained by the people of Grace Church. 
More important than this, it was realized by Dr. Hunt- 
ington that the success of the work demanded a policy 
in accordance with which the best leader available 
should be selected to be vicar of the chapel. He should 
be left free in the development and carrying on of 
the work in that center. The parish was most success- 
ful in the securing of wise and able leaders for this 
work, and the policy of its independent development 
under the sympathetic oversight of the parish church 
was amply indicated throughout the rectorship of Dr. 
Huntington. One of the developments in connection 
with the work at Grace Chapel, in conformity with 
similar developments for work among the children in 
poorer sections of great cities, was the establishment of 
a country, or farm, center, for use in the summer-time. 

224 





HAPEL 


‘ 


c 


E 


| 


GRAC 


a 


ae a me 
a 7 ue ia - ; 
Best eae 


Pe 
dk ieee 





GRACE CHURCH, NEW YORK 


It was a place to which children, and not only children 
but men and women workers, might resort for rest and 
refreshment, and for the emphasizing of influences 
brought to bear in the city, but still more capable of de- 
velopment in the country. It was in 1899 that the 
Chapel of Peace was built at New Canaan, another 
monument to the growing and wide-spreading influence 
of the parish under Dr. Huntington’s leadership. 

It was the custom of the rector to send to his people 
at Grace Church a printed circular letter twice every 
year. Ohne of these letters was sent in the fall, usually 
on All Saints’ Day, and contained his appeal for the 
people’s support of the parish’s philanthropies. The 
other, which was sent usually at Easter time, was more 
concerned with the extension of the parish itself. Such 
was the confidence of his people in their rector’s judg- 
ment that these appeals never failed of generous re- 
sponse. He succeeded in firing the imagination of the 
parishioners with the large significance of the work 
which they had in hand. His characteristic imagina- 
tive large-mindedness appears from time to time in 
the phrasing of the letters themselves. In 1899 he 
wrote: 


Dear Frienps: 

There may look to be a certain tiresome sameness in the 
list of objects for which your aid is asked from year to year, 
but that is simply because human want is what it is, a various 
thing, and yet in its very variety monotonous. For there is 
a sort of fixed manifoldness about misfortune, and men and 
women are distressful and unhappy and embarrassed in much 
the same ways from generation to generation. 


225 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Again at a later date in another All Saints’ Day 
letter he writes: 


What we are doing, or trying to do, here in Grace Parish is 
literally neighborhood work. We are lending a hand to peo- 
ple who live within the sound of our bells, that is all. More- 
over, we aim to do it in such a way as shall uplift and strength- 
en, rather than debilitate and pauperize those to whom we offer 
the right-hand of fellowship. 

This intent is symbolized to the eye in the carving just above 
the main entrance of our church. The apostle, as there pic- 
tured, is not relying upon the talk of the lips, neither is he 
merely giving an alms, but he is stretching out his hand to help. 


And in still another the letter reads as follows: 


“Church work,” so called, is, after all, only a more or less 
successful attempt to embody in action the Apostolic entreaty, 
“Be ye kind one to another.” It modifies and mollifies to some 
extent the hard aspects of a social system based on contract 
and maintained by competition. By systematic visiting, by 
looking after the children, by teaching the simpler arts and 
crafts, and by bringing trained skill to bear upon “all man- 
ner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people,” 
we seek to justify our tenacity of purpose in staying where 
we are and continuing, for a future of indefinite duration, to 
be a downtown Church. 

No institution touches society at so many and such varied 
points as does the Christian Church. Sociology, civics, or- 
ganized charity, scientific beneficence—all these are very well, 
but the Gospel of the Carpenter’s Son, as a means of uplift 
and betterment, excels them all. You have believed this in the 
past, as your actions have abundantly shown. I pray you to 
keep on believing it, 


Grace Church was commonly spoken of as a great 
example of the institutional church, a phrase which in 
226 


GRACE CHURCH, NEW YORK 


itself did not very happily designate those ideals for 
which in Dr. Huntington’s mind a parish ought to 
stand. This does not imply that he was not deeply 
concerned with the service which the parish ought to 
render to the community. Im the last Year Book 
which he prepared he gave expression to his concep- 
tion of the work of the parish in the following words: 


In matters social and civic Grace Church stands for melior- 
ism. What is that? Well, it is of the comparative degree, 
neither optimism nor pessimism, but, in the judgment of many, 
a more tenable thing than either the one or the other. The op- 
timist sees everything rosy ; the pessimist sees everything black ; 
the meliorist is confident that he discerns a little streak of dawn, 
and has faith to believe that gradually it will broaden and 
brighten. 

The “institutional church” (the phrase is rapidly becoming 
cant), has to bear two reproaches. On the one hand are the 
socialists, with their cry that the day has gone by for “‘ec- 
clesiastical’’? methods of doing good; that what is wanted is 
not charity, but justice; all efforts on the part of organized 
Christianity to set things right being a mere scratching of the 
surface, a trying to do with a hand rake a task that calls for 
the plough. On the other hand are those who complain that 
for the Lady Ecclesia to soil her hands with “work” of any 
sort is infra dignitatem, and that what is wanted in these 
religiously dead days is not the “institutional” but the “in- 
spirational” church. 

To the socialists’ complaint we answer, ‘‘Go ahead with your 
scheme for making society perfect by legislation at the hands 
of imperfect men. If you can work your Utopia without the 
preliminary trouble of converting selfish people into unselfish 
ones, do so; but we are meliorists, and count ourselves happy 
if by persuading a few into what you are pleased to call 
altruism (we ourselves prefer a word that antedates Comte) we 
can improve things in our lifetime just a little bit.” 


227 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


He felt proud of the service Grace Church had been 
able to render, and in reviewing his work on one occa-~ 
sion in conversation with a friend who had commended 
the wonderful activity of the parish he said, “I have 
proved perhaps to Morgan Dix and some other people 
who thought I was an iridescent dreamer that I have 
some practical ideas.” He used to say that what the 
ideal parish ought to strive to express was neither com- 
munism nor almsgiving but something better than 
either. It would perhaps be true to say that he never 
really saw the problem of the social order as it has been 
later realized in the thought and work of the Church, 
and this in spite of the fact that this problem is so 
clearly a unity problem. He lived too early for this 
understanding. His life-work was over before this 
emphasis had come. This is not to say that he was not 
keenly interested in what seemed to him new problems 
which were appearing above the horizon. So far as he 
could he strove to understand and measure them. He 
was more sympathetic on the whole with the develop- 
ments of the newer mysticism or what had come to be 
designated as the Emmanuel Movement than he was 
with the rise of the social service interests; but in the 
whole development of the parish life at Grace Church 
he did strive to give adequate expression to the parish’s 
meaning for its community, and nothing in his experi- 
ence ever gave him greater satisfaction than the plan 
for celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of the 
parish by making the corner lot, Broadway and 

228 


GRACE CHURCH, NEW YORK 


Tenth Street, a playground for the choir-boys and a 
garden for the whole neighborhood. 

As to his general estimate of the total significance of 
a parish’s life, he found the best word to express this in 
an anniversary sermon which he preached at All Saints, 
Worcester, in 1902, to be the word “symmetry.” 
This he defined as a well-proportioned combination of 
the three essential elements of devotion, thought, and 
service, designated in year-books and in other places as 
worship, instruction, and work, and expressed, as he be- 
lieved, in excellent codrdination in the Episcopal 
Church. In his sermon at Grace Church in 1896 on the 
occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the church’s con- 
struction, he had pictured the parish’s fine record as 
consisting in “staunch adherence to the essentials of the 
Christian faith, a dignified simplicity in worship, and 
such moderate measures and charitable courses in church 
government and legislation, as promised to attract and 
conciliate rather than to vex and affront those whose 
religious convictions have been moulded in a religion 
other than our own.” 


229 


IX 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


' Y HILE the work in the parish was going on 
in the development of its spiritual and in- 
stitutional life, there was at the same time 
in progress a development of the fabric, or group of 
buildings which clustered about the parish church. The 
property ran through to Fourth Avenue. And during 
the years of Dr. Huntington’s rectorship, in the build- 
ings which were constructed or altered there, were 
housed the choir school, the quarters for the deaconesses 
and for the work of the deaconess school, and homes for 
one or more of the parish curates, in addition to the 
necessary choir-rooms and work-rooms for the conduct 
of the parish work. All the time, there stood beside 
the church the rectory, which was constantly engaged 
in its hospitable activities. 

One of Dr. Huntington’s dreams for a long time was 
the procuring of the corner lot adjoining the church 
upon which stood for many years the Vienna bakery, 
so familiar to the eyes of generations of New Yorkers. 
This dream eventually came true, and the corner lot 
became a sort of close, which not only admirably set off 
the beauty of the church buildings, but which also, with 

230 ; 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


its out-of-door pulpit, provided a place for occasional 
open-air services. 

The improvement in the fabric of the church itself 
was almost continuous through the years. ‘There were 
not only the important additions to the group of build- 
ings, but there were the lesser additions and improve- 
ments, many of them memorials, eager gifts by the 
people, carefully supervised by the rector. ‘There was 
the mosaic floor; there were the memorial windows; 
there were the chimes for church and chapel; there was 
the introduction of electric lighting; there was the im- 
portant enlargement of the chancel with the construc- 
tion of a new sanctuary, and, in the years 1900 to 1908 
and later, the chantry alterations. Up to the very end 
of his life Dr. Huntington was concerned with some 
addition or improvement in the parish church which 
deeply interested him. The last addition which he 
really hoped to live long enough to see completed was 
the building of the open-air pulpit in the space on the 
corner of Broadway and Tenth Street. This whole 
scheme was really the finishing touch in the develop- 
ment of the buildings at the parish center, and 
nothing could be more appropriate than the making of 
this open space and the pulpit a memorial to Dr. Hunt- 
ington. It is known as the Huntington Close. The 
Year Book Grace Church published after his death 
says about the open pulpit that he had looked forward 
eagerly to the beginning of its ministry of loving serv- 
ice, and that it was one of the interests which occupied 
his thoughts during the last days of his life. ‘“Will not 

231 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


the fact,” the Year Book adds, “‘that the memorial is to 
be beyond the walls of the Church, be typical of that 
out-reaching presentation of the Gospel for which he 
always stood?” “As a people we need no such re- 
minder lest we should forget him, but this is a work 
to which he had committed himself; in thus cooperating 
with him we shall be making his name fragrant in the 
thoughts of thousands who never knew him, but to 
whom Huntington Close will carry his constant mes- 
sage of brotherliness and good will.” 

Grace Church has been fortunate, throughout its his- 
tory, in its curates, many of whom have gone out from 
their apprenticeship there into positions of importance 
and usefulness. It was true during Dr. Huntington’s 
ministry that a succession of good men assisted him on 
the staff of the parish. They gained much from their 
association with him and found in him a considerate 
and sympathetic leader. 

One of the Grace Church assistants, writing reminis- 
cently of the life in the parish, speaks of Dr. Hunting- 
ton’s kindly and most patient comment on a certain 
case of neglect, adding that “it was such noble forbear- 
ance and sympathy that made those who had occasion 
to test 1t deeply, regard him as surely of one spirit with 
his Great Example.” The same assistant tells also of 
his words of wisdom to a certain curate who had de- 
clared for the celibate life for himself, as the life in 
which he could accomplish most for his Master. 
“Would you not do better,” began Dr. Huntington, 
“instead of taking the advice concerning celibacy of 

232 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


those who have known only that form of life, to hear 
the judgment of one who has known both the married 
and the celibate life?” 

“He never seemed happier or more full of enthu- 
siasm,” adds this writer, “his laughter was never 
heartier, than in the staff meetings which he held for 
the workers of the parish, both men and women. He 
said he had been mildly criticized for giving so much 
of his time as these involved, but that he felt sure they 
were worth all they cost in this way, in refreshment and 
stimulus, and in increase of the staff’s ‘esprit de corps.’ 
Those who had the privilege of attending the meetings 
certainly felt that he made through them the truest and 
most generous gift of himself, mentally and spiritually, 
to those he had gathered about him as members of his 
larger family in the administration of the great city 
parish. 

“The three steps leading from the vestry-room in 
Grace House to the Rectory study were worn down to 
the wood. The Rector remarked one day that he must 
have these painted. But when one of the curates told 
him he hoped this would not be done, because when he 
used the little stairs he always thought of the proverb, 
‘When thou findest a wise man, see that thy foot wear 
out his doorstep,’ the Rector smiled as though pleased 
and replied, ‘O, very well, then, if you have any such 
feeling about them, [ ’Il leave them as they are.” 

Of the various works which the parish undertook for 
the benefit of the community, there was none which 
more strongly appealed to the heart of rector and 

233 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


people than the work at Grace Chapel. The Rev. 
George H. Bottome was the vicar at Grace Chapel for 
twenty years during Dr. Huntington’s rectorship, and 
the relation between rector and vicar was a happy one. 
In celebration of the completion of his twenty years’ 
ministry, there was placed in Grace Chapel in 1907 a 
new organ dedicated to the memory of Margaret Bot- 
tome, the vicar’s mother. In writing to the vicar an- 
nouncing this memorial gift Dr. Huntington says: 


Permit me to suggest, subject to your revisal, the enclosed 
form of inscription. 
With sincere attachment, I am 
Your friend and yoke-fellow. 


“This organ, the gift of many friends, has been builded and 
placed where it is to the end that by its breath it may both 
please God and also keep vocal the memory of the late Margaret 
Bottome, whose son, the Rev. George Hill Bottome, vicar of 
Grace Chapel, completes among us at this time twenty years 
of continuous service as a minister of Christ and shepherd of 
souls.” 


Dr. Huntington’s friends used laughingly to assert 
that the chief ambition of his life was to have at Grace 
Church a corps of seven deacons, seven being the mystic 
and appealing number associated with that first group 
of deacons mentioned in the Book of Acts. His 
friends asserted further that on the staff of the parish 
it was his hope to have enrolled, at the same time, seven 
deaconesses. If this was the ambition of Dr. Hunt- 
ington, he was certainly doomed to frequent disappoint- 
ments. Deacons, after their manner, hastened to be- 

234 


AT GRACE CHURCH — 


come priests, and the curates, whether priests or dea- 
cons, after what seemed to them appropriately short 
periods of probation, hastened to enter independent 
ministries of their own. This, of course, was to be ex- 
pected, and it was a matter of rejoicing to the leader 
when his assistants found good positions for themselves. 
It was a difficult matter, however, to keep the quota 
full. Another difficulty arose from the tendency on the 
part of the deacons to marry the deaconesses. There 
was nothing derogatory about this. Both biblical 
authority, Church order, and common sense approved 
of deacons marrying, and doubtless a good helpmeet 
for a minister may often be found in a deaconess. 
Marrying, however, on the part of deaconesses proved 
to be a different matter, and presented one of several 
difficulties which sprang up in relation to the develop- 
ment of that order. 

As has been already said, Dr. Huntington took a 
foremost position in General Convention in framing 
the Church laws in regard to the ministry of women. 
But his interest was far from stopping with the busi- 
ness of legislation. He doubtless did more than any 
other one man in the Episcopal Church to help forward 
the practical working out of the deaconess problem. 
It was he who established, in New York, the first school 
for the training of deaconesses, and the one which, on 
the whole, has had the greatest influence upon the move- 
ment. He took great pains in preparing a curriculum 
for the years of training, and in appointing efficient 
leaders and teachers as the school grew to larger pro- 

235 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


portions. His hand is evident in the service compiled 
for the setting apart of deaconesses, which has had 
wider use than any other form. Its biblical and histori- 
cal allusions, at times somewhat fanciful or far-fetched, 
are characteristic of him. 

Of the difficulties which beset the movement he was 
keenly aware, and they, at times, caused him no little 
concern. One of these, as has been hinted, touched 
upon the question of marriage. The deaconesses were 
not to be, by common consent and upon well-grounded 
principles, a professed order. There was to be no vow 
which would impose celibacy. At the same time, there 
grew up a feeling that a woman who had once been set 
apart somewhat lost caste if she subsequently married. 
It came to pass that there were young women of high 
character and fine training, who had passed the school 
examinations with distinction, who refused to be set 
apart, deliberately explaining that they wished some 
day to be married if the fitting opportunity afforded, 
and that they were unwilling to subject themselves to 
any possible odium or seeming disloyalty which might 
be charged against them if they married after once hav- 
ing been ordained. ‘This difficulty in itself gave notice, 
as it were, of an underlying problem which would some 
day have to be faced, the problem, i. e., of definition. 
The question would inevitably in time be raised as to 
whether a deaconess is a female deacon, a full partici- 
pant in one of the orders of the ministry. A further 
question behind this, of course, was as to whether the 
ministry in its totality was one day to be open to 

236 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


women. On this point Dr. Huntington wrote in an- 
swer to a question in a question box: 


Personally, I believe the office of our deaconess to be in 
essence identical with the office of deacon, though this Church 
has never so declared. But even supposing the two offices to be 
of equal rank, it does not follow that the functions must be the 
same. A captain in the Navy ranks with a colonel in the Army. 


Dr. Huntington clearly enough perceived that this 
problem lay in the future. It was, furthermore, his 
determination not to hurry the consideration of it. As 
a matter of fact, not any of the women who had entered 
the order, or were interested in its possibilities, were as 
yet interested in that question. It is true, so far as the 
Church in America is concerned, that up to this present 
time there has apparently been no demand or desire 
upon the part of women to claim a full share in the 
ministry of the Church on a parity with men. Such de- 
sire and demand have been apparent in the Church of 
England, but not in America. 

Another difficulty which troubled Dr. Huntington 
and those interested in the growth of the deaconess 
movement was the fact that not many women of the 
finest quality, that is to say, of the highest education 
and best equipment, sought out this form of ministry. 
The ultimate ground for this was probably that very 
vagueness of definition to which allusion has been made. 
The dignity and security of the profession did not seem 
to be clearly enough defined nor its opportunities suf- 
ficiently commanding to enlist the consecration of 
women of the highest capabilities. 

237 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


It was also inevitable, as in any movement of the sort, 
that there were individuals who attained to the order 
of deaconess who were more concerned in magnifying 
their office, through assertion of quasi-authority or 
superiority, than by humility and self-effacement and 
in self-sacrificing labors. Such individuals brought, of 
course, a criticism upon the newly established order in 
the Church. , 

These difficulties are mentioned because it is so evi- 
dent that Dr. Huntington was keenly aware of them, 
and also because they served only to whet his enthusi- 
asm in the matter. He never faltered in his belief in 
the genuine possibilities of this ministry of women, and 
he, lived to see his hopes largely vindicated. The school 
grew to be a school of real excellence. It turned out 
a body of efficient and consecrated workers, who have 
been a credit to the order throughout the country; and 
the school became a model for other efforts of a like 
character in different parts of the country. ‘The move- 
ment has grown in the course of years from its small 
beginnings until now there are scattered throughout 
the land a band of deaconesses who number between 
two and three hundred. 

At the start the idea of the order of deaconesses de- 
veloped in a perfectly normal and natural way. It 
grew out of a realization of the perfectly obvious chance 
there was within the Church, or the Church’s designated 
ministry, for the work of women. At the very start 
also objection to the idea was voiced. The press at the 
very beginning spoke, in this connection, of holy orders 

238 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


and of ordination; and this seemed to Bishop Paret nm 
itself reason enough for avoiding the word “deaconess”’ 
altogether. 

On the practical side, so far as the development under 
Dr. Huntington at Grace Church was concerned, it 
was in 1887 that the first fund was established by gift, 
as a Deaconess Fund. Before Dr. Huntington’s death 
six such funds had been given, and the seventh shortly 
after his death was given in his memory. In the Year 
Book of 1887 he speaks of the opening for women in- 
telligently trained to do work in the community. He 
does not use the word “deaconess,” but he says: 
“Seven such women helpers would be none too many 
for a parish situated as ours is. There is no doubt 
a real danger of pauperizing a community of laboring 
people by over-much alms giving; but there can never 
be an over-gift of sympathy, nor is there likely to be 
any excess of kindly counsel and advice.” 

The close association of this work in New York with 
Dr. Huntington and with Grace Church led him to feel 
that it would be considered too much of a parochial 
institution, and would become injured by being thought 
more narrowly limited in its scope than it really was. 
It was, of course, essentially a diocesan or, rather, a 
national movement, and as soon as the cathedral foun- 
dation was started Dr. Huntington conceived the idea 
that St. Faith’s, the school of deaconesses, should be 
planted within the precincts of the cathedral. This ac- 
complishment he was able to see brought about. There 
the school now stands, implanting ever higher ideals 

239 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


and finer standards for the ministry of women, and 
bringing its influence to bear, not only upon the diocese, 
but upon the Church at large. 

Once established in the rectorship of Grace Church, 
New York, Dr. Huntington undoubtedly became con- 
vinced in his own mind that he was there to stay. Nat- 
urally, no other parish could induce him to leave Grace 
Church. It was equally plain to him, the purposes of 
his life being so clearly mapped out, that no call to a 
bishopric would lure him away from his position. ‘This 
was, however, by no means clear to the Church at large. 
It is almost literally true during the first half, at any 
rate, of his ministry in New York, that every diocese 
which found its bishopric vacant turned to Dr. Hunt- 
ington to fill the vacancy, such was the confidence in 
him, and so great the appreciation of his powers of 
leadership. As a rule, the approaches from these dio- 
ceses were made quietly, with a view to sounding out 
the possibilities. In the case of Southern Ohio, how- 
ever, in 1887, he was elected bishop without any intima- 
tion having reached him that such action was contem- 
plated. He immediately telegraphed his declination. 
The New York reporter of the Cincinnati “Enquirer,” 
after the manner of reporters of a certain type, wrote 
that “Dr. Huntington left a comfortable dinner-party 
to-night long enough to say, ‘I have telegraphed. I 
positively cannot accept it. You will excuse me, won’t 
you?’ And the dapper, well-nourished little man hur- 
ried off to unseen regions, from which came the refined 
clatter of pearl-handled knives and forks on Sévres 

240 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


china.” 'The press as a whole, however, understood 
that while twelve thousand dollars a year in New York 
may perhaps be better than three thousand dollars a 
year in Cincinnati, it was also true, and far more to 
the point, that there was a much larger field for good 
work where he was. 

Other dioceses among those which turned to him were 
Central Pennsylvania and Western New York. 
There were obvious reasons, because of past associa- 
tions, why Massachusetts, when Bishop Paddock died 
in 1891, should turn to Dr. Huntington. Happily, it 
soon became evident that the intention of the diocese 
was to elect Phillips Brooks; and no man in all the 
land rejoiced more heartily in his election and subse- 
quent confirmation than did Dr. Huntington. 

It was natural, after Bishop Brooks died, that Dr. 
Huntington should be thought of again as a possibility 
for Massachusetts. It had, however, by this time be- 
come well understood that he was not easily to be drawn 
away from the parish in New York. Bishop Atwood 
testifies that at this time he, Bishop Atwood, advised 
those in Massachusetts who were interested to elect Dr. 
Huntington without asking him beforehand. This ad- 
vice was not followed, and certain representatives of 
the diocese did sound him; he promptly declined any 
consideration of the matter. Some time after this 
Bishop Atwood, meeting Dr. Huntington at Northeast 
Harbor, told him of the advice which he had given to 
Massachusetts, to which Dr. Huntington replied, “I am 
glad that they did n’t take your advice.” On the occa- 

241 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


sion of one of the approaches referred to above, Bishop 
Potter wrote: “The Ordinal makes me, I believe, your 
Episcopal father, but I confess I am a bit hard-worked 
as your Episcopal mother! Here comes another offer 
from a widowed Diocese. I am asked, inter alia, 
whether you still hold to the ‘Church Idea,’ whether 
you have a ‘missionary spirit,’ whether you are not a 
rather stiff High Churchman (I confess dealing with 
this conundrum rattled me a good deal), and, lastly, 
whether I would encourage your going to With 
this last question I had no difficulty. I informed my 
interlocutor that I have not yet lapsed into idiocy, a 
response which I am bound to own he somewhat re- 
sented. It will be enough if you telegraph me, ‘Reply 
as usual,’ as I devoutly hope you will.” ‘There were 
some who understood. 

After he had declined the election to the diocese of 
Southern Ohio, a brother clergyman who knew him 
well wrote to him in doggerel: 





Why, Oh! Why, Oh! 

Won’t you be Bishop of Southern Ohio, 
Becoming a prelate plump and hearty, 
Ready to lord it at Cincinnati? 

What choicer lot, or happier luck, I 
Venture to ask, than to grow to a buckeye? 
Pause, pampered rector, answer Why, Oh! 
You won’t be Bishop of Southern Ohio? 


To which he replied with the following lines: 


Brother, curious overmuch, 
Would’st then know the reason why 
242 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


Here among the Anglo-Dutch 
I elect to live and die? 


Cincinnatus left his plough, 
Championing the rights of Rome; 
Roman rites to frustrate, now 
Cincinnati stay at home. 


During the busy years at Grace Church, Dr. Hunt- 
ington’s pen was far from idle. The most important 
work which he undertook, in his own estimation and in 
its general influence, was the writing of the two books 
which developed the argument already set forth in 
“The Church Idea.” The first of these, entitled “The 
Peace of the Church,” was published in 1891, and the 
second, entitled ““A National Church,” in the year 1898. 
In addition to these writings, and other briefer pam- 
phlets or articles connected with them, all intended to 
set forth his thoughts in regard to Church unity, he 
published also from time to time sermons which were 
designed to meet special situations, or to deal with 
causes which he had at heart, and also sermonic ma- 
terial; such for instance as that contained in the little 
volume entitled “The Four Key Words of Religion.” 
There were also many articles contributed to the re- 
views, and letters sent to the daily press in which, aside 
from the subject-matter of his writings, his prose style 
arrested attention and won the admiration of those who 
read him. His style had a trenchant and convincing 
quality which brought him praise from many quarters. 
Dean Stubbs wrote him upon the receipt of a sermon, 
“T envy you your sureness of touch, your judicial tem- 

243 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


per and happy characterization.” Dr. Leighton Parks 
wrote him in regard to a certain letter which he had sent 
to “The Church Standard”: “First of all it gave me 
the same sort of pleasure that one has in looking at a 
Greek statue, or which I have no doubt I should have 
in writing a Greek sonnet, if I had not forgotten how 
to write Greek sonnets. The thing is perfect. One or 
two passes and then the rapier straight through. I do 
not know how you do it, and with so few words too. 
However, you know and you do it, and that is the great 
thing. It settles the matter, and we shall never hear 
anything more I take it from that ‘pastoral as an 
authoritative statement.’” This was in reference to 
the so-called “Pastoral Letter” of 1894. Dr. Weir 
Mitchell wrote upon the receipt of another pamphlet, 
“I have read with double pleasure your essay because, 
first, I agree with you and second, because of the joy 
of reading English like yours.” 

But it was not always prose that he wrote. It was a 
pleasure to him to indulge from time to time in the 
writing of verse. It was his custom occasionally to 
employ this form in the writing of letters. He writes 
for instance to Bishop Potter in verse, when the bishop 
on one occasion has left his cigar-case at the rectory of 
Grace Church; and, again, to Dr. Donald on the occa- 
sion of the transfer of a “church tramp” who, having 
exhausted the financial resources of the rector of the 
Church of the Ascension, had moved over to try his 
activities at Grace. With his lighter verses he used to 
delight his friends now and then, upon the occasion of 

244 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


some meeting, perhaps of the college class, or of a club 
to which he belonged. It was at a meeting of the Cleri- 
cus Club in Boston, the Phillips Brooks Club, that he 
wrote certain verses entitled “Natura Naturans,” in 
which Nature is reproached by a critic because all her 
products are so exactly the same and is begged to evolve 
something new. ‘The verses close with these lines: 


“I °]] show you something fresh,” she cried; 
“J *]] teach you how it looks” ; 
Then plunged both hands into the clay, 
And modelled Phillips Brooks. 


Certain other lighter verses of his which had wide 
circulation were those written at the time when the 
statue of William Penn was placed on the City Hall 
in Philadelphia. 'The verses represent a conversation 
between William Penn and Charles the First, king and 
martyr, who found his place about the same time in a 
stained-glass window in a near-by church. It was a 
moment when the observance, on the part of certain 
ritualists, of St. Charles’s day with high ceremonial had 
occasioned considerable comment. At the same time 
one of the bishops of the Church had been read out of 
Christendom by a gathering of the Protestant com- 
munions because of certain alleged heresies of his, and 
politics in Pennsylvania were for the moment con- 
sidered in a far from savory condition. ‘The verses 
read as follows: 

Quoth William Penn to Martyr Charles, 


“Youll scarcely feel at home 


245 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Down there upon a window-pane 
While I enjoy the dome. 

Let me step down and out, I pray, 
And you be patron saint. 

A Friend ought not to stand in bronze, 
And leave a King in paint.” 

Quoth Martyr Charles to William Penn, 
“Tis best to let things be; 

They ’re used to looking up to you, 
And they can see through me.” 


His more serious expressions in verse were collected 
and published in May, 1908, in a slim book entitled 
“Sonnets and a Dream,” a little volume which collectors 
of American poetry are glad to make room for on their 
shelf of minor poets. One of the best of the sonnets 
in this collection was written at the time of the death 
of that champion of the Broad-church movement in 
America, Dr. Edward A. Washburn. Unfortunately, 
in the original publication, and in the reprint of this 
volume made as late as 1922, one of the lines of this 
sonnet, through a misprint, has fallen out of place. 
The sonnet, as giving an idea of the quality of his writ- 
ing, is printed here: 


AMONG THE Kings 


“And they buried him... among the kings.” 
IT Chronicles, 24: 16. 


Yes, lay him down among the royal dead. 
His steady hand no more the censer swings. 
Room for this priest beside the bones of Kings! 
“For kingly was he, though a priest,” they said. 
246 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


Great-hearted friend! thee, too, we counted bred 
For priesthood loftier than the tardy wings 
Of souls content with songs the caged bird sings 
Are wont to soar to. Thine it was to wed 
Far-sundered thoughts in amity complete ; 
With Christ’s own freedom fettered minds to free; 
To thrid the darkling paths where timid feet 
Faltered and slipped. Oh, it was not in thee 
To blanch at any peril! Then most meet 
That thou among the kings shouldst buried be. 


Richard Watson Gilder, the poet, wrote him on one 
occasion, “I do not quite understand why one who 
writes verse so well does not write more.” He himself 
once said to a friend in regard to his verses, “If God 
had given me the gift of passion I could have been a 
poet.” 

At the end of his book entitled “The Peace of the 
Church” Dr. Huntington makes his plea for Church 
unity in the following words: 


So woe-begone and pitiful to some of us does the present 
broken, nay shattered, condition of contemporary Christendom 
appear, that, as believers in the divine origin of our religion, 
we cannot but seem to ourselves to be shut up to one or other 
of two conclusions,—either that Almighty God is bent on bring- 
ing to pass, through all this disintegration, a better and truer 
unity than has ever been before; or else that what we see going 
on before our eyes is the slow merging of the ecclesiastical in 
the civil order,—the coming in of the so-called “gospel of the 
secular life,” the practical obliteration of the Church, as of 
an institution that has fulfilled its mission for the sanctifying 
of society. For this latter alternative, in the face of a whole 
world lying in wickedness, we are not prepared; therefore, we 
take the former. This drives us into building-projects whether 

24:7 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


we will or no; hence, if we vex you by our importunity, try to 
think of us as of men upon whom a necessity is laid; if we seem 
the victims of “a craze,” try to remember that so Paul looked 
to Festus, and Simon Peter to those who on the day of Pentecost 
thought him “full of new wine.” 

There are two perspective drawings of the Church of Christ 
often hung up for us to look at and admire, but neither of 
which, I venture to insist, deserves our unqualified approval. 
One is a dreamy, Turneresque representation of a building, 
large enough to be sure, and lofty enough, but so completely 
wrapped about with wreaths of mist, that we are left very much 
in the dark as to what the structure is; we cannot tell where 
it begins or where it ends. The thought of the architect is 
hopelessly concealed by the water-colorist’s too generous fog; 
the whole thing is a suggestion, nothing more. The other pic- 
ture represents a tidy little building, snug and compact, jaunt- 
ily balanced upon a narrow ledge of rock. There is no mystery 
about it at all. We see the whole thing at a glance. It evi- 
dently will not accommodate many people; but then, nobody 
can deny that the outline is faultless, the symbolism correct, and 
the masonry beyond reproach. There is no mist in the air, 
there are no clouds in the sky; the whole thing is distinct, well- 
defined, pretty to look at, small. 

The one picture is from the hand of the liberalist, the other 
from the hand of the sectarian,—Anglican-sectarian, or an- 
other, it matters not. The former of them gives us largeness 
without definiteness; its companion, definiteness without size. 

In our endeavors at unifying the national religion and helping 
forward the People’s Church, it will be wise of us to take 
neither of these architectural attempts for our accepted model, 
but rather to aim at such lines of structure as shall impress 
themselves on all observers as being alike generous and clean- 
cut. 


In “A National Church,” after discussing the theory 
and practicability of his ideal of a national church, he 


closes his argument with this appeal: 
248 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


If we would enlist the strong minds, the warm hearts, the 
strenuous souls of our day in the service of the Church of 
Christ, the Church of Christ must be attractively presented. 
Her grandeur must be appreciated, the wide reach of her com- 
prehensiveness displayed. The trouble is that we too often 
identify the Church of God with all manner of trifling details 
that are no part of its essence, and then lift up hands of holy 
horror if one whom we are trying to win retorts contemptuously, 
“Is that the society, that the spiritual commonwealth, that the 
fellowship of souls, in behalf of which you would have me work 
myself up into a fine enthusiasm? No, I have better things to 
do; loftier aims absorb me, and larger hopes. Build your little 
city. I gomy way.” 

But would you turn this haughty critic’s slur into a humble 
prayer for guidance? Show him the true picture of the Church 
of God. Let him see the length and breadth and height and 
depth of it. Open his eyes to behold that innumerable com- 
pany of faithful men who even now, today, in all climates, un- 
der all skies, are making the imitation of Christ their per- 
sistent aim. When the Kingdom is thus conceived of, when it 
is recognized as gathering up into itself all that has been most 
precious in the past, and all that makes for greater spiritual 
achievement in days to come, we cease to wonder at a saying 
attributed to one of the worthies of the primitive days, “He 
that hath God for his Father hath the Church for his Mother” ; 
for this ministration to the ideal side of our nature, of which 
I have been speaking, is the very sort of mothering we want. 
We are tempted to grow hard, we are tempted to grow bitter, 
we are tempted to grow cynical; for human life, as we see it, 
has much that is repellent to show, much that is despicable, 
much that is sordid. Is there, we ask, can there be any hope 
for such a world as this? ‘The vision of the city that is at 
unity with itself is God’s reply. For that it is worth one’s 
while to live. For that some, peradventure, might even dare 
to die. 


We have his own valuation as to his writings, as to 
249 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


those which he estimated most important and as to the 
order of importance which he apparently attached to 
them. ‘Toward the end of his life he arranged for the 
printing in uniform style of seven volumes. The first 
three of these volumes were the books concerning 
Church unity, in the order in which they appeared: 
“The Church Idea,” ‘The Peace of the Church,” and 
‘““A National Church.” There followed two volumes 
of sermons, ‘‘Causes of the Soul” and “A Good Shep- 
herd”; and then two volumes of essays entitled “Briefs 
on Religion”; and in these volumes were included 
“Psyche,” “The Spiritual House,” “Four Key Words 
of Religion”; and then the writings concerned with 
Prayer Book revision, “Popular Misconceptions,” 
“Short History of the Book of Common Prayer,” 
“Theology’s Eminent Domain.” 


250 


LETTERS 


ae Aa te 
Cie Leathe 

Aa Aiea 
AW aye 


$ on 
a Ar! 


CHAP Pp 


Age 


- 
wy 





Grace Church Rectory, New York, 
Tuesday, Oct. 7, 1884. 
Dear Mapam: 

It was a most honorable motive that prompted your writing 
to me as you have done, and I should scarcely be treating you 
with respect were I to seek to remove your scruple by making 
light of it. Let me say then that while I should never dream 
of repelling from the Lord’s Table one who I knew had come 
to it in just the way in which you came, on Sunday, that from 
a quick impulse of affection, I can not, when deliberately asked 
for counsel, advise your forming the habit of so coming until to 
the “emotional interest” which now, as you intimate, furnishes 
the constraining force, there have been added the few but 
momentous convictions which the Christian Church has in all 
ages accounted essential to a right religious life. In saying 
this I believe I am showing a better solicitude for your peace 
of mind than if I were to write, “Oh yes, come when you feel 
like it. And don’t vex your mind about Creeds or Church 
laws.” Your letter which carries honesty on its face assures 
me that however little you may have been in the habit of going 
to Church or however indifferent you may fancy yourself to 
“religion,” the great spiritual verities of the Christian faith 
have a hold upon you which you cannot and would not if you 
could shake off. You may not have formally accepted them 
but neither have you deliberately rejected them. I could not 
stand up in a pulpit and try to teach did I not hold it as a 
cardinal point of my faith that to every soul honestly or eagerly 
seeking the light of God’s truth that light sooner or later will be 
given. That it will be given to you I cannot doubt, and I urge 
you to take as your daily prayer that cry which better than any 
other seems to express the need of these perplexed and difficult 
times in which we live: “Lord, I believe, help thou mine un- 
belief.” 

253 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


New York, 
Tuesday, Dec. 16, 1884. 
My Dear Miss MERepiTu: 

The hurry here is enough to take one’s breath away. Did 
you ever hear of soldiers being killed in battle by the “windage” 
of a cannon-ball? If you hear of my premature demise, set 
it down to my having been caught in the draught of the huge 
spinning sphere known as New York life. This is my apology, 
—a somewhat labored one for not having more promptly ac- 
knowledged your two notes. 

The view of the Incarnation which you speak of as being new 
to you has long had a great fascination for me, in fact I may 
say that ever since I presumed to hold a theology at all, this has 
been a prime feature of it. I do not pretend to erudition in 
these matters, but I fancy I am right in thinking that this way 
of conceiving the truth of the “Eternal Word” is characteristic 
of the Greek rather than of the Latin mind. The current 
way of thinking on the subject is open to the charge of making 
the Incarnation an afterthought, whereas the other grounds it 
in the everlasting fitness of things,—and this last is always the 
more satisfactory, is n’t it? 


Tuesday, Jan. 6, ’85. 
My Dear Miss Merepitu: 

I want you to know precisely what your Christmas present to 
me really was and so I write to tell you that I exchanged Moz- 
ley for a book which I have been very desirous of owning ever 
since it was announced, and of which there was but a single 
copy to be found in the book-stores of this neighborhood,— 
Ward’s “Essays on the Philosophy of Theism.” 

Ward was one of the early Tractarians and one of the ablest 
of them, being accounted by some critics the superior even of 
Newman himself as a keen reasoner. He went over to Rome 
with the rest of them, but never entered the Roman priesthood. 

The feeling of discontent & perplexity engendered by the 
“profession” of “Father” has not been allayed by any- 
thing as yet put forth in defence of the procedure. The feeling 

254 





AT GRACE CHURCH 


uppermost in my own heart is sadness at the thought that such a 
jumbling up of high motives and gross errors of judgment 
should be possible. I deplore too the effect upon “them that 
are without.” Alas for Church Unity, my fond dream! How 
far away it looks to be, 


New York, Feb. 3, 1885. 
My Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

When you again have occasion to write me for such a pur- 
pose, please do not say 

“Can you—I know you can; will you help me” 
but say 

“Will you—I know you will—can you, etc., etc.” This 
would suit the facts of the case much better. So much for re- 
proof, now for counsel. 

My advice to you is not to be so terribly “down on” fairs and 
sales as most good Xtians who undertake to handle this topic 
are, but to draw a line of distinction between fairs & the really 
objectionable practices sometimes connected with them,—rafiles, 
fortune-telling, theatricals and the like. I can see no more 
reason why money raised by women at a bona fide sale of the 
work of their own hands should be rejected, than why money 
earned by their husbands & brothers,—sometimes in a, much 
more questionable, but seldom challenged, way should be 
refused. 

If I were you I would take the ground that the very best, 
the ideal way of raising money for religious purposes is 
through the offertory; and that next to this come, for matters 
over which the Rector rightfully has control, the pastoral letter 
asking individuals for contributions for special objects, and, 
in matters pertaining to the province of the Wardens & Vestry, 
the old fashioned subscription paper. 

There,—those are all “my sentiments,” and if I were to cover 
a ream I do not know that I could say more, though of course 
the points admit of amplification. 

Between ourselves, I continue somewhat homesick,—like “a 
cat in a strange garret,” or to use a more dignified metaphor 


255 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


like a bubble on the crest of a breaker,—but now I think of it, 
“homesick” is not precisely the epithet for this last. In fact 
this bubble simile rather betrays me. Evidently there is a drop 
of wounded vanity in it. Apropos of wounded vanity, what 
say you to Gosse & his verdict on your dapper ways? How 
much better to live in a city like this where pistol-shots and 
dynamite keep one wide awake. 


To Bisoor Doane 


Grace Church Rectory, 
Feb. 28th, 1885. 
My Dear BisHor: 

I have your letter of yesterday, and am just come from lay- 
ing it, together with the previous telegraphic correspondence, 
before Governor Fish at his house, to which, I am sorry to say, 
he is confined by temporary illness. With the greatest regret, 
we find ourselves still compelled to differ with you as to the 
simple question of what the Journal of the Proceedings of the 
Convention requires of us as an Editing Committee. 

As we read the record, our plain duty seems to be to print 
the Creed in the Visitation Office as it stands in the Standard 
Pr. Book, and to print it in the Confirmation Office as it stands 
in the Book Annexed. 

It does not seem to us to be a question as to whether the 
Convention did or did not do an inconsistent thing in allowing 
this discrepancy to stand, but rather a question as to whether 
they did or did not so leave things. 

As you justly remark, everything that was done in 1883 is 
liable to reversal in 1886, and discussion as to the intrinsic 
merits of the question is scarcely worth our while. Neverthe- 
less, following out your reference to the Latin tongue, I am 
moved to remark that nothing in the history of Anglican 
liturgics has seemed to me more highly suggestive than the 
fact (doubtless due to the revival of Greek at the Universities) 
that King Edward’s revisers, in spite of their familiarity with 
“resurrectio carnis,”’ had yet the large intelligence to go back 
beyond it, and even beyond the current form of the Apostolic 

256 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


symbol to the wording of St. Paul. Moreover, it is worth not- 
ing, when the question of liturgical consistency is raised, that, 
in the days when the saying of the Creed was a part of the Con- 
firmation Office, the phrasing of it was what it still is in the 
Catechism. Pardon this excursus into the merits of the ques- 
tion, which is only justified by your challenge to “common 
sense,” and believe me 
Most truly yours. 


Thursday, March 26, 1885. 
My Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. . . IL long with a great longing for the time to come when 
the liturgical permissions of the Book Annexed will become 
available. As one of the promoters of the revision I feel es- 
pecially bound in honor not to anticipate the lawfully appointed 
time, but I can see so many ways in which the services of Lent 
might be made more attractive to the people at large if only 
we had the desired ‘‘flexibility.” ... 


May 1, 1885. 
My Dear Cor, Wasusurn: 

I am at present engaged upon just such an essay as the one 
you suggest,—i.e. a paper on the relation of the Church to 
the Nation, but I have promised it to Bishop Perry as a chap- 
ter in his forthcoming History of the Episcopal Church in the 
U. S. I will bear in mind what you say, but cannot commit 
myself definitely at present. 

You have my sympathy in your biographical tribulations. 
Two sorts of lives furnish material for book-making and only 
two, those that have been full of thought and those that have 
been full of adventure,—for the rest their memorial is ‘‘writ in 
water.” 


New York, May 2, 1885. 
My Dear Miss MerepiTu: 
. . . Yours are among the very few letters that give me any- 
thing and I prize them accordingly. Most of my correspond- 
ents now-a-days are of the seeking and getting sort. Con- 


257 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


gratulate yourself that you are not the supposed almoner of 
some very wealthy person, the imagined medium of communica- 
tion with untold wealth waiting to give itself away... . 

As for the question you raise about George Eliot, I have long 
been of opinion that in spite of her grievous errors of judg- 
ment she was nevertheless a powerful preacher of righteous- 
ness, and righteousness of the Gospel type, in that she did all 
she could do to make the trait of selfishness odious. As I re- 
call those of her stories I have read this motive seems to me to 
have been the ruling one of her authorship. Is there any one 
word that more completely gathers up into itself the heart & 
marrow of the ethics of Jesus Xt than the word “unselfish- 
FIGS he il 

Final action on the proposed changes in the Prayer Book 
cannot be had until the next Gen. Con. in 1886. Meanwhile 
the Book Annexed as modified by the Philadelphia Convention 
has been issued and is selling well. Probably a reactionary 
wave will now set in, and by the time the next Convention meets 
a well-compacted opposition will be in the field. A unanimity 
like that of 1883 is too much to expect, but I hope that the best 
of the proposed changes will be affirmed. 

. . . I came this morning into possession of a rare pamphlet 
of which I have long been in search. “A Sermon delivered at 
Topsfield Jan. 5, 1800. Occasioned by the death of George 
Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the American Armies 
and late President of the United States, By Asahel Hunting- 
ton, A.M.” Topsfield is a little town in Essex Co., Massachu- 
setts, and A. H. was my father’s father. The Sermon is one 
of the scarcer “Americana” and I am lucky to get hold of it. 
I am now fired with the ambition to make a complete collection 
of the five published discourses of my devout & patriotic an- 
cestor. 


New York, Saturday Night. 
May 24, ’85. 
Dear Miss Merepitu: 
Before answering the Bishop’s letter I should be glad to have 
a clearer idea than I now have as to what a “Quiet Day” is, 


258 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


and what is expected of the clergyman conducting it. If you 
have a personal knowledge, gained by actual attendance at one 
of these solemnities, I should count it a great kindness if you 
would write at your earliest convenience and tell me all about 
it. I do not wish to shirk any real duty, but I confess to 
you that such an undertaking as this which is asked of me looks 
very formidable, and appears as something for which I cannot 
think myself fitted. This is not an answer to your nice long 
letter,—only a request for more... . 


New York, May 29, 1885. 
My Dear Miss MEREDITH: ... 
‘Reasons for refusing to conduct a ‘Quiet Day.” 

My main point, however, I may as well state, since I can do 
it in few words. My difficulty lies in seeing how any good can 
come from talking to women exclusively,—as if they had any 
religious interests apart from men’s interests. 

The proposal has come from persons in whose judgment I 
have so much confidence that I cannot help doubting whether 
I do not misapprehend the matter. Certainly the wisdom of 
the picked Church-women of Philadelphia ought to be better 
than my wisdom,—and yet you surely would not have me in- 
sincere nor would you have me go into the thing only half- 
persuaded of the rightfulness of it... . 


New York, Oct. 2, 1885. 
My Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. . . Do not be misled by the reports of the New York Con- 
vention which you see in the daily papers. The reporters got 
the whole thing “by the ears.” What really took place was 
the defeat of a well planned attack upon the Book Annexed,— 
but by a very slender majority. The contest was exhausting 
to the nerves but stimulating while it lasted... . 


New York, Jan. 8, 1886. 
My Dear Cor, WasHBurn: 
. . . Never allow yourself to falter in the belief that the 
Church is destined to have great influence in years to come on 


259 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


the religious destinies of Central Massachusetts. To an eye 
that looks below the surface it has already brought to pass in 
Worcester itself unlooked for results out of all proportion in 
their importance to the actual access of numbers to its own 
membership. In a letter received only this morning from Dr. 
Shields, the Princeton divine whose article in the Century on 
“The United Churches of the United States” has attracted so 
much attention, he speaks of himself as believing that “the 
English Prayer Book is destined to play a chief part in the 
development of American Church Unity.” | 

Thoughtful Christian Scholars the land over seem to be 
coming to be of this opinion. The outlook never was more 
hopeful. 

New York, Jan. 16, 1886. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 

- - . IT am thankful to see Dr. Garrison entering, in this 
week’s “Church,” upon a defence of liturgical revision. He is 
perhaps a little bit too contemptuous in his tone towards op- 
ponents, but some of them, & notably the Bp. of W. N. Y., 
(whose name stands affixed both to the Joint Committee’s Re- 
port & to an article in your new Phila. Magazine in which the 
Book Annexed is characterized as a “melancholy production”) 
have been very exasperating in their (doubtless well-meant) mis- 
representation of the facts. in the case. . . . The echoes of the 
Mission still linger in our atmosphere, and opinion is much 
divided, though I am bound to say with a strong preponderance 
on the side of the Missioners. I confess myself to you how- 
ever as still skeptical & as quite unsatisfied with the distinc- 
tion (to my mind artificial & unreal) between the “Mission” in 
its essential idea & our old acquaintance the American Revival. 
If we have really been wrong all these years in disparaging the 
latter, I think “Peccavi” would be a more proper cry than “Oh, 
but it is different.” .. , 


New York, Jan. 20, 1886. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 
Evidently you have not seen the remarkable paper by Dr. 
Shields in the Nov. Century, or you would be at no loss to see 
260 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


the connection between the two questions of Liturgical Revision 
& Ch. Unity in America. I send it by this post and beg that 
you will take an early opportunity of reading it, for apart 
from its intrinsic merits, the fact of its coming from a Presby- 
terian source is most significant. 

. . . How could you think for a moment that I could pos- 
sibly “preach against” the Mission? But ever since you called 
me a “conservative High Churchman of a rapidly disappear- 
ing type,”—(yes you did say it, at Newport), I have been 
ready to expect any measure of misconception of my real aims 


& purposes. 


New York, May 19, 1886. 
My Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

There can be no doubt I think that you are right in your no- 
tion about the use of the word “elements.” Both of the in- 
stances in which the word is employed in the Pr. Book bear out 
your view. In the rubric in the Communion Office the phrase 
“consecrated elements” seems to suggest that at a previous 
time these same elements were unconsecrated, while in the Bap- 
tismal Office (first Prayer) the “element” of water is distinctly 
mentioned as having been sanctified by Christ. As to the other 
verbal question you raised, Dr. Richey is, I think, undoubtedly 
right in maintaining that, in the strict interpretation of the 
word a “liturgy” is a form for celebrating the Eucharist. It is 
however absurd to set aside the largest & popular significance 
which properly attaches to the term, and is, in fact, the only 
sense in which “the liturgy” is referred to in our own formula- 
ries. By the way I have a droll anecdote about Richey. A 
meeting of divines was held under his auspices at the Gen. 
Theol. Sem. a week ago last night, to see what could be done 
to block the wheels of the revision movement and to destroy 
the Book Annexed. But it seems that the multitude were very 
far from being all of them of one mind, and on the following 
morning I received this message written on a postal-card by 
one who had been present. “ ‘I sent for thee to curse mine 
enemies but behold thou hast blessed them altogether.’ Dr. R. 
at midnight.”°. .. 

261 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Can you give me a topic for an Address at Smith College 
Commencement? §, C. is a Woman’s College at Northamp- 
ton Mass. 


New York, May 21, 1886. 
My Dear Cox. Wasusurn: 

I read your just, genial and interesting eulogy of Dr. Bacon 
with a very fresh image before my eye of the admirable man 
whom the Court honored itself in honoring. I entertained a 
real affection for the man, great as was the disparity in our 
years, and [ shall always think of him as representing one of 
the very best types of sturdy New England characters. . . . 

Just at present I am a good deal interested in fitting up or 
planning to fit up a church we have lately bought for the Ital- 
ians. It was originally constructed for a congregation of “the 
people called Methodists,” and to make it over into a fit chiesa 
for the wandering children of King Humberto is a task that 
taxes one’s architectural faculties to the utmost. I am also 
incubating over certain discourses on the Labor Question, 
which carries me back to the days of the old “International”? 
when I remember inflicting on a long-suffering people ever so 
many sermons on “The Church and the Commune.” How pa- 
tient you all were with me to be sure. 


New York, Nov. 3, 1886. 
My Dear Miss Mereviti: 

You would pardon my delay in replying to your letter of 
the 22nd if you knew how completely I was immersed in the 
work of the Gen. Convention towards the end of the Session. 
As the time of adjournment approached the hours were ex- 
tended so that one had almost no time at all left to him for 
his own affairs. . . 

The results of the Convention were far more favorable to 
the cause I have had so long at heart than I had dared to hope 
would be the case. The final success of the movement is now 
in my judgment assured, and in retiring as I have done, from 
a further active official connection with it, I am governed by 


262 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


the conviction that to bring new names into association with 
the work will serve to quench jealousies and allay fears. The 
whole thing has been a lesson not to allow a few anonymous 
voices in “religious” newspapers to force a factitious public 
opinion upon us in place of the real... . 


New York, Nov. 22, 1886. 
Dear Miss MERrepitTu: 

It will give me much pleasure to answer your question about 
my apparent inconsistency in opposing the change of name but 
at the same time favoring an alteration in the title-page of 
the Prayer Book. First of all, however, I should much like to 
know what you think it was that I suggested. In one paper 
I have seen myself credited with a proposition precisely the 
opposite of the proposition I actually made. | 

Dr. Taylor, Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, is my 
guest just now. He is one of the dons sent over to grace the 
Harvard solemnities. We find him heavy and slow but also 
possessed of that solidity which goes with and in a measure 
makes up for the torpid attributes. He preached for me yes- 
terday on the imprecatory psalms, & had a most ingenious 


explanation of the harshest of them. 
Dec. 6, 1886. 


My Dear Miss MERrepiTH: 

You quote my motion in re the title-page of the Prayer 
Book with entire accuracy. My notion was this, and it ap- 
pears to my own mind a thoroughly catholic notion,—that the 
Prayer Book is, ia a sense, a hand book of devotion which be- 
longs of right to the whole English speaking race. It exists, 
(unlike the Eng. Bible in this respect) under three forms or 
types, the English, the Irish and the American. It becomes 
necessary, therefore, in designating any particular prayer- 
book, to say to which of these types it belongs, and this we 
should accomplish, in this country, by speaking of our book 
as “The Book of Common Prayer, etc., etc. According to the 
use in the U. S. A.” In other words, I would so phrase the 

263 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


title-page that Christian people of all names might, if they 
would, take the book and use it, without feeling that they were 
specially beholden to us Protestant Episcopalians for leave to 
do so. Dr. Egar’s motion, on the other hand, i. e., to make it 
read “according to the use of the Church in the U. S.A.” 
seemed to declare our Church and the Holy Catholic Ch. in 
this country coterminous and coextensive, a position to which 
I believe four-fifths of our Communion would demur. The view 
I take seems to you, I dare say, too subtile for popular appre- 
hension. Evidently in the Convention it scared Ritualists & 
Evangelicals about equally, while the Broads, in the person of 
Dr. Brooks, distinctly repudiated it. Still, I would urge, that 
it is but the logical corollary to the Bishops’ proposition that 
“the Church” in this Republic consists of the aggregate of the 
baptized. 

. . . This morning I went to the semi-centennial of the Un- 
ion Theol. Seminary and listened to a long oration on the his- 
tory of Presbyterianism in this country during the last 50 
years. ‘There was a melancholy satisfaction in finding that 
“High” & “Low” controversies are as nothing for violence 


compared with the “Old School” & “New School.” ... 


To tHe Ricut Rey. true Assistant BisHor oF 
PENNSYLVANIA 


Grace Church Rectory, 
Dec. 24, 1886. 
My Dear Bisnor Wuiraker: 

I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of 
the 20th, informing me of my appointment on a Committee 
instructed to take steps for the maintenance of the “Protestant 
position of the Church.” While highly appreciating this mark 
of confidence on the part of fellow Churchmen, with whom 
upon most points I have hitherto found myself in hearty ac- 
cord, I yet am constrained in unequivocal terms to decline the 
appointment. Were I convinced of a real danger threatening 
the Reformation settlement under which Anglican Churchmen 
have lived for the last three hundred years, I should, with the 

264 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


utmost alacrity, join this or any other movement that might 
have for its object the defense of the great principles which 
would in that case be at stake. But I am distinctly not of 
the opinion that an increase in the number of those who are 
desirous of changing the Church’s name, constitutes a menace 
to the Church’s integrity so serious as to justify an organized 
antagonism. 

On the contrary, I can not help thinking that such organiza- 
tion would be doubly harmful, first, as indicating a fear for 
which there is no sufficient ground, and, secondly, as identifying 
all those who are desirous of a broader name and title with the 
small party of extremists which is seeking to undo the Reforma- 
tion; whereas, I am convinced that among those who have 
expressed themselves dissatisfied with the present name, there 
are many, very many, who are seeking for nothing else than 
a more generous and comprehensive title, such as will not ap- 
pear to base Churchmanship exclusively upon either Protes- 
tantism or Episcopacy. For myself, I am free to say, as one 
who has steadily voted against the change every time it has 
been mooted, that objection to any and all of the new names 
thus far proposed, rather than any strong attachment to the 
epithet “Protestant Episcopal,’ has furnished the ground of 
my action. When that better day for American Christendom, 
to which some of us are sanguine enough to look forward, shall 
have come, the question of name will take care of itself, Tull 
then, any new name which should appear to make the Holy 
Catholic Church in the United States coterminous and coex- 
tensive with the organization now known as the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, could not but suggest an arrogance of self- 
assertion for which neither our Constitution nor our Common 
Prayer furnishes the slightest warrant. 


To rue Mempers or Bakers’ Unton No. 1. 


Grace Church Rectory, Jan. 6, 1887. 
GENTLEMEN: 
Your circular letter has just come to hand and I lose no 
time in expressing my hearty sympathy with you in the matter 


265 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


of overwork, as well as my ready willingness to aid you by any 
means in my power in securing for the purposes of rest that 
seventh portion of time, which under the law of God is every 
man’s by right. As to whether the exigencies of the trade to 
which you belong make it possible for all the men employed to 
enjoy this rest on Sunday I am not sufficiently informed to 
judge, but that the equivalent of the Sunday ought to be given 
to each and every working man in his course, once in seven 
days, I feel more sure of than I do of most so-called “economic 
truths.” Confident that you have acted wisely in deciding to 
appeal for the redress of your grievance to the religious sense 
of the community, I am, with sincere regard 


Faithfully yours. 


Friday Apr. 22, 1887. 
My Dear Miss Merepitu: 

. . . You have heard, of course, all about Miss Wolfe’s gen- 
erous benefaction to Grace Church. It is often a questionable 
blessing for a parish to receive an endowment; the people are 
too strongly tempted to lie back and say, “Now, there is no need 
of our exerting ourselves any more.” I hope, however, that in 
this instance the money may prove a stimulus rather than an 
incubus. It may not be practicable to carry out what seems 
to have been Miss Wolfe’s wish & hope, namely that the church 
should become at once a “free church.” Large as was the 
bequest, it would be more than swallowed up if we were to 
undertake to buy out the pew-owners. But we can at least do 
something by means of “open Church” on week-days, and fre- 
quent free services, over and above the appointed ones, to make 
the building more accessible than it now is to the public. I 
have also a dream of enlarging the benevolent work of the 
parish by introducing a larger element of woman’s service. 
“Deaconesses,” as possibly you remember, have always been 
a dream of mine, and there seems at last a prospect of my 
being able to make at least a humble beginning in that direc- 
tion. With two trained nurses already engaged and a visitor, 


266 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


I shall have a group of three, and if I could find a fourth to 
undertake the housekeeping for the establishment, the plan 
would be complete... . 

Ever faithfully yours. 


Wednesday, Aug. 17, 1887. 
My Dear Miss MrrepITH: 

. . . You taunt me with having given in my adhesion to the 
Cathedral scheme. In self-defence I shall have to send you a 
sermon in which I tried to set forth fairly the pros and cons 
of the matter. I should have sent it anyhow, in conformity 
with my custom of imposing upon your patience everything 
of mine that finds its way into print, had I not taken it rather 
for granted that you would see it in The Churchman. The 
N. York World, at the time the Sermon was preached, reported 
my summary of what might plausibly be urged against the 
project & entirely omitted all mention of my counter argu- 
ments, heading the report “Dr. Huntington opposes the plan.” 
Rev. Arthur Lawrence of Stockbridge told me yesterday at 
Bar Harbor that he had seen this representation of the matter 
reproduced in an English paper called “Church Bells,” and that 
he had written to the editor setting him right,—but life is not 
long enough for correcting all the misrepresentations that get 
afloat; better to grin and bear them. 

You ask what I think about “Father” I think him 
a man of warm and generous heart and full of an eager zeal to 
right the ways of life, but I cannot think that either he or 
anybody else ought to be allowed free course in matters eccle- 
siastical simply because they are “manifestly in earnest.” 
Other people, it may be, are equally in earnest, who do not so 
palpably advertise the fact, and their rights in a Church that 
calls itself reformed ought to be guarded. However,—as the 
occupant of a luxurious rectory I feel myself heavily handi- 
capped in venturing to criticize a man who lives as well as 
works among the very poor, and it is only when talking with 


267 





WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


those who will not misconstrue my animus, that I speak my 
mind freely about the new monasticism. . 


Friday, Feb. 10: 1888. 
My Dear Miss Mrerepitu: 

Your kind letter of a fortnight ago kindled in me some faint 
hope that possibly you might be willing, if your health should 
so far improve as to allow it, to undertake the leadership in my 
effort to establish “Deaconesses” in New York. If you really 
believe in the idea, as I most firmly do, I cannot think of any 
way in which you could more effectually serve the interests of 
the Church and of your own sex here in America. My great 
fear is lest the movement fall into the hands of middle-class 
women & fail to attract the natural and proper leaders, the 
women of cultivation and breeding. Your presence at the head 
of the work, even though you were not able to give much time 
or effort to personal visitation of the poor, would be a tower 
of strength to us, and might be the means of grafting upon our 
New York Church life some of those peculiar excellencies that 
hitherto have been too exclusively characteristic of Phila- 
delphia. 

I scarcely dare to urge these considerations upon one who 
is only just convalescent from a serious illness, but if they seem 
to you preposterous, set it down to my ardent interest in the 
effort to provide for Christian women in America some other 
avenue of usefulness than that afforded by the Sisterhood. 
Your Philadelphia friends would, I suspect, tear me limb from 
limb if they. knew of my having ventured upon any such 
suggestion. ... 

... You are right in your conjecture about Geo. Bot- 
tome. . . . He is a fine fellow, of real promise, and I have 
become warmly attached to him already. My other new assist- 
ant, Chalmers, is also a most valuable man, and altogether I 
never was so efficiently helped as I am now in matters paro- 
chial. . . . Do think over the Deaconess question against I 
come again. How could you imagine that dear, good Miss 
could meet the demands? Nothing ever shook my con- 
fidence in your judgment before. .. . 


268 





AT GRACE CHURCH 


Tuesday Feb. 14, 1888. 
My Dear Miss MrerepiTu: 

Bishop Mant (“On the Rubrics”) may be quoted as a high 
authority in favor of saying the opening sentences of the 
Litany in unison. I am not aware of any ritual precedent for 
the similar usage which is springing up in the case of the Gen- 
eral Thanksgiving. The heartiness with which the people take 
it up is perhaps the best argument in its favor, as that seems 
to point to an inherent fitness in the thing. 

If you want an argument, however, I will give you one which 
I have never seen in print, but which I think it would puzzle a 
“Philadelphia lawyer” to controvert. The rubric before the 
Creed says “Then shall be said the Apostles’ Creed, by the 
Minister and the People,” and the next rubric we come to 
reads, “And after that these Prayers following.” Now inas- 
much as there is no intimation that “these Prayers following”’ 
are to be said any otherwise than the Creed has just been or- 
dered to be said, it may fairly be inferred, by a generally ac- 
cepted principle of rubrical interpretation, that “the People” 
if they choose may say all the prayers aloud with the Minister 
just as they have been saying the Creed. At present their zeal 
only prompts them to say the Gen. Thanksgiving, but perhaps 
at some future day, devotional fervor will have risen to such a 
point that congregations will use their now dormant right to 
say all the prayers aloud. 

This argument will be met by the counter-argument that 
the Amens being in italics, the inference is that they only, & 
not the prayer, are to be said by the congregation. But the 
sufficient rejoinder to this is that the italicizing of the Amens 
has been the result (at least in the American Book) more of 
editorial judgment than of legislative enactment, and that, at 
any rate, no “letter of the law” can be found which forces this 
interpretation of the italic type upon us. 

As a matter of fact, both the Invocations of the Litany and 
the Gen. Thanksgiving are so said in Grace Church. I found 
the usage existing in the Parish and I have not disturbed it. 
Indeed I can scarcely imagine myself making up my mouth 


269 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


to request a Congregation not to join in a prayer. In my 
Worcester Church we said the Invocations in concert but not 
the Gen. Thanksgiving. .. . 


Tuesday, Feb. 14th, 1888. 
My Dear Mr. Sueparp: 

Your letter of Saturday asking me to serve as one of a com- 
mittee of fifteen to be known as “The Fourth Commandment 
Committee” has received my very best attention. Be assured 
that I cordially appreciate both the courtesy of the request, 
and the evidence of personal confidence in me which your asking 
me to serve affords. I find myself, however, unable to accept 
the responsibility of membership in the Committee, and for 
these two reasons, namely, 

1. Because of my opinion that in a country where Church 
and State are separate, ministers of the Gospel ought not to 
engage directly and actively in coercive measures of any sort, 
unless in some emergency when simple good citizenship makes it 
absolutely necessary for them to do so, and, 

2. Because, although as an individual I share your opinion 
that the Fourth Commandment, rightly interpreted, is a statute 
of perpetual binding force, I recognize the fact that many good 
Christian people, whose wisdom and integrity I cannot ques- 
tion, are of another opinion, and I despair of seeing civil sanc- 
tion given to God’s law of periodic rest on grounds not gener- 
ally accepted. In my judgment, which may easily be a mis- 
taken one, the quiet observance of one day in seven may be best 
secured by insisting upon it as an immemorial right, the recog- 
nition of which insures, as may be abundantly proven, ines- 
timable blessings to the peoples who respect it. 


Wednesday April 25: 1888. 
My Dear Miss Merepiru: 

I am glad to know that you were interested in my lecture. 
To me it seemed a very halting affair. Somehow the words 
would not come as I wanted them to do, and every sentence had 
to be dragged up by main force. But I have long ago learned 


270 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


that the internal sensations of a man who is speaking ex tem- 
pore, are no measure of the impression made by what he says. 
Sometimes he fancies he has done his best when he has really 
“reached” nobody, and at other times, when he has been over- 
whelmed by a sense of ignominous failure, he learns to his 
astonishment that his words were spoken to effect. . . . 
Faithfully yours. 


North East Harbor, Mt. Desert, Maine, July 27, 1888. 
Dear Miss Merepiru: 

. . . I have been re-reading Mr. Arnold’s theological writ- 
ings and am more than ever convinced that he was badly “off 
the track,” and that the pet phrases with which he conjured 
so confidently are will-o-the-wisp. He made no end of sport 
of the doctrine, figment he thought it, of a “personal God,” but 
a loving God is inconceivable unless personal, and unless the 
“power not ourselves” have love behind it, I for one can feel 
no interest in going on building altars to it. Arnold’s notion 
that the word “Let every one that nameth the name of Xt 
depart from iniquity” contained the essence of “the Gospel” 
seems to me to have misled him fatally. The news that God 
loved us is the Gospel, and no ethical precept however high or 
sacred can take the place of it or be made to do duty as a sort 
of neo-Christianity. Myers appears to me to echo Arnold in 
these matters, and for this reason I distrust him. He promised 
well as a poet. I am sorry he has not stuck to his verses. I 
am surprised to hear what you say about “Father” Maturin. 
I was under the impression that the report of his conversion 
to Rome had been authoritatively and emphatically denied. 
Certainly we in New York were given to understand so. I can 
quite understand and sympathize with your feeling of 
heightened respect for the man, supposing him to have really 
gone over. How one who has been led to accept as true the 
Eucharistic teaching of our “advanced” friends can have the 
heart to stay away from Rome I do not see. The outlook in 
Boston in the matter of Rome and the Schools looks serious, 
does it not? If we come to open conflict, as we may, it will 


271 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


go hard with sensible people. They will find themselves between 
the upper millstone of Jesuitry and the nether of an equally 
intolerant and wholly crude Protestanism—as a matter of fact, 
according to the theory of our system of government, it rests 
with the majority to say what shall be taught as history in the 
public schools. For three generations New England teachers 
have been cramming the Pilgrim Fathers down the throats of 
all the young of the land indiscriminately. Why in the world 
have not the R. Catholics, now that they have attained to 
civil supremacy in Boston, precisely the same right to cram 
the Jesuit Fathers, who bore no mean part, by the way, in the 
settlement of this Continent, down the throats of the coming 
generation of little people? It would not be strange if it 
should end in history being excluded from the schools alto- 
gether. When Gladstone a dozen or more years ago was fram- 
ing a scheme for a State University in Ireland to which 
parents of both persuasions might send their sons, he found it 
necessary to exclude from the course of studies both history 
and moral philosophy, since it is evident that neither of these 
branches could be taught without a certain amount of theo- 
logical bias. Pray keep me informed of any change in address, 
and believe me notwithstanding my failures and failings to be 
always 


Faithfully your friend. 


Monday Aug. 27: 1888. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. .. Your judgment upon Robert Elsmere strikes me as 
just and to the point. In point of style it is a fascinating 
book. I sat up till two in the morning reading it, and laid 
it down most reluctantly at that. Rural life, university life, 
society life are all of them wonderfully well pictured. “Rose” 
appears to me by far the best “creation” in the book. ‘The 
other characters can be easily paralleled, but I do not remem- 
ber having ever met her precise counterpart in fiction. But 
I am not a devourer of novels and this observation does not 
signify. Theologically the book is weak in not giving any 
adequate reason for Elsmere’s “change of face.” ‘There is an 


272 





HOUNHO WAOVASD LV LIdTAd YWOOCLNO GNV WSOTO NOLONIINOH WHE 





eel hi 


t's. a. 





AT GRACE CHURCH 


effort to force conviction by an imaginative process which is 
scarcely fair. What I mean is that instead of stating in so 
many words the objections to the Christian faith which Els- 
mere found insuperable, the writer tries to captivate the intelli- 
gence by showing us a magnificent interior, lurid with 
vellum-backed folios and strewn with the latest French and 
German monographs on all conceivable subjects, and then 
saying in awe-stricken tones, the man who lives here, who has 
read all these books and subscribes to all these monthlies & 
quarterlies is an unbeliever; his giant intellect has weighed 
Christianity in the balance and declared it wanting. It is to 
be regretted that more extended extracts are not vouchsafed 
to us from those convincing works, “The Idols of the Market 
Place” and “The History of Testimony.” One would rather 
have a chance to answer the arguments of Wendover than 
take it on faith that they are unanswerable. Such formal 
arguments as Mrs. Ward does condescend to bring forward as 
samples, are certainly not formidable on the score of novelty. 
The closing chapters are, in their only too evident weakness, 
almost a refutation of the positions taken in the main body of 
the book. To think, for instance, of Elsmere’s finding him- 
self driven to contrive a sort of 19th Century Sacrament, after 
having discarded the Church’s system of rites & ordinances as 
superstitions. 

I am delighted with the doings of the Lambeth Conference. 
Don’t fail to get the full report when published. For once and 
at last the rulers of the Anglican Communion have spoken out 
with something like clearness & emphasis with respect to the 
great social & ethical questions of the day, instead of wrang- 
gling impotently over little theological tempests in ecclesias- 
tical tea-pots— A mixed metaphor I must confess. 


Saturday, Sept. 8, 1888. 
My Dear Sr: 
From what you tell me of the changes which it is proposed 
to make in connection with the Seminary Magazine, I am per- 
suaded that your expectation of increased usefulness is a well- 


273 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


grounded one. In my judgment it would be a good thing for 
the Church as a whole, if the beliefs traditionally associated 
with the Diocese of Virginia enjoyed a wider acceptance than 
of late years they have been able to secure. In fact I can 
think of few misfortunes more likely to work the Church irrep- 
arable harm than the extinction, so lightly prophesied here 
and there, of what is known as “evangelical” churchmanship. 
In so far as your Magazine, with its increased resources, avails 
to ward off such a calamity it will deserve well of all of us. 


Thursday Dec. 6: 1888. 
My Dear Miss MerepitH: 

. .. Thank you, no, I think I won’t look up the family 
coat of arms, for I doubt whether it exists. Not that there 
are not several “‘crests” floating about in the family, and I 
have a vivid remembrance of two full coats, one emblazoned 
in red and gold on vellum and the other done on plain paper 
in crayon that used to adorn the walls of the “parlor” in my 
childhood; but, between ourselves, I suppose there are not 
twenty families in the whole country that have the right “to 
bear arms,” in the sense in which the Herald’s College under- 
stands that phrase. J am not an expert in heraldry, or any- 
thing approaching it, but I have a notion that arms do not 
belong to a whole family connection, but only to certain mem- 
bers of it. In this I may be wrong, but here in New York one 
becomes so supremely disgusted with the nonsensical parade 
of armorial bearings by people who evidently have not a shadow 
of right to them, as to prefer to sink the whole thing out of 
sight. EHxempli gratia,—here is a fine lady, a recognized 
member of the “Prince of Wales set,” whose father I distinctly 
remember as our family grocer, in the manufacturing town in 
which she (the fine lady) and I grew up together. It was noth- 
ing against him that he was a grocer, so long as his goods were 
what he said they were, and his prices what they ought to be; 
but the fact that his struggles with the Queen’s English were 
painful to listen to is presumptive evidence, as the lawyers say, 
that her Majesty would be as little likely to allow his ‘arms as 

274 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


his words. And yet if I meet my contemporary out driving, 
crests flash in my eyes from the horses’ blinders, from the but- 
tons on the flunkeys’ overcoats, & from the panel of the car- 
riage door. You see what a rank Republican I am in my feel- 
ings. And yet after this outburst, I have to confess that I 
stole, yes that is the word,—the glorious motto I put on the 
steps of my little temple of truth, from the arms of the Earls 
of Huntington. But I took it because I liked it, and not 
because I fancied myself in any manner connected with earl- 
doms. Down to my grandfather, who was a minister, and my 
father who was a physician, all my paternal ancestors, so far 
as I can trace them, which is only to 1660, were honest Con- 
necticut farmers. Those coats of arms which I have referred 
to as glimmering through the atmosphere of my childhood’s 
memories were all on my mother’s side. One of these same 
maternal crests consisted of three wild cats arranged in parallel 
lines, two facing one way and one the other. As my grand- 
mother had three daughters, two of them twins, this was con- 
sidered by my mother and her sisters a little too personal to 
be pleasant, and by their friends a capital joke. You brought 
all this upon yourself. 


Tuesday, Feb. 5, 1889. 
Dear Cor. WasHpurn: 

I should like, with you, to take strong ground in favor of 
“Episcopal” as the adjective and “Episcopalian” as the sub- 
stantive only, but usage I fear is against us and requires that 
the two be used interchangeably. In my own speech I adhere to 
the distinction. The quotation from S. Smith “proves too 
much,” for it would rule out Episcopalian in virtue of the 
final “ian” from use as a noun, and so leave us with two adjec- 
tives on our hands and no noun, for we are scarcely prepared 
I take it to accept the phrase “I am an Episcopal.” 


Friday, Nov. 22, 1889. 
My Dear Miss MErepitu: 
... My head is full of “Deaconesses” and their proper 
training, but it might make your head ache, if I were to un- 


275 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


burden myself on the subject. But it is a great thing, is n’t it, 
that we should at last have secured the Church’s unequivocal 
sanction for the movement. In the course of the coming year 
I hope to see established in New York a “Normal School” for 
the education of Deaconesses. One, who has been already 
trained for the two years required by the new Canon, is to be 
set apart by Bishop Potter for service in Grace Parish on 
Epiphany afternoon... . 


To THe Rev. A. C. A. Hat. 


Grace Church Rectory, 
Nov. 29, 1889. 
My Dear Mr. Hatt: 

Although there are propositions in your tract from which, 
personally, I should dissent, I fail to find anything that ap- 
pears to me to lie without the rather generous limits of Angli- 
can inclusiveness in the department of eucharistic doctrine. 
Certainly I should make no quarrel on the score of your main 
contention, namely, that the Holy Communion may properly 
be spoken of as a “sacrifice.” So long as we are careful to 
have it well understood that it is not a material thing, I cannot 
see that the use of the word “sacrifice,” in such a connection, 
carries peril. As to who it is that offers the sacrifice, we 
might differ. As I read the Office of the Holy Communion in 
the Prayer Book, it is the whole body of the faithful, led by the 
priest as their representative man, who are the offerers. The 
priest speaks for the people, not instead of them. Another 
serious point of difference upon which we should be likely to 
fall, were we to argue the question out, and a point, by the 
way, to which the exigencies of your argument do not require 
you to advert, is the degree of value to be attached to the 
elements in our estimate of the “Memorize.” To my thinking 
it is the action, the doing what the Lord commanded, that 
marks the significance of this sacrament, rather than the bread 
and wine. Here you will say that I have the Catechism 
against me. Perhaps so,—but then I do not feel bound to 
deal any more tenderly with Overall’s definitions than you have 


276 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


done with the somewhat overstrained phrases of some of the 
XXXIX Articles. 


To Bispop PoTtTEeEr 


March 15, 1890. 

. . . To begin with, there can be no doubt I think of the jus- 
tice of your observation that if there is to be a tightening of the 
reins, both reins must be held in and not one only, otherwise 
there will result a swerving either to the right hand or to the 
left. In my personal judgment the doings at St. Ignatius and 
St. Mary the Virgin’s constitute a scandal as much graver 
than any that can result from the doings at St. George’s as 
doctrine is more sacred than polity. But this is only my own 
opinion, which is neither here nor there, and has no special 
bearing on the point as to which you are seeking light. The 
real question is how to meet the communication of the Standing 
Com. Upon this I will make two or three detached remarks 
and then try to draw an inference. 

1st. This communication of the S. C. has no coercive char- 
acter whatsoever. As Bishop of the Diocese you receive a 
suggestion from a body which among various functions pos- 
sesses an advisory one. But the advice given is not like that 
of a “law officer of the crown,” morally binding upon the re- 
cipient. In fact, as being unmasked advice, it has even less 
weight than it would have had in case of your having sought 
it, as under the provisions of the same canon you might have 
done had you cared. Even then, in the case, I mean, of your 
having sought the advice, you would in no sense be bound by it. 
The Standing Com. make a suggestion to you. You reply, or 
may reply, “Gentlemen, I thank you for this indication of your 
solicitation for the good order of the Diocese, but in view of all 
the interests involved, I judge such action as you suggest inex- 
pedient, and take the responsibility of inaction.” 

2. Who is the person to whose alleged irregularities of con- 
duct the S. C. is calling attention? He is a clergyman of 
hitherto unblemished reputation and conspicuous usefulness. 
A man to whom by general consent of men of all parties the 


277 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Church in this city and diocese owes a great debt of gratitude. 
A man who in the short space of six years may be said to have 
rescued an important parish from impending ruin, and set it in 
the forefront of the battle. All this does not exempt him from 
being called to account if he has done wrong, but what it does 
do is this, it entitles him to the favorable presumption that he 
has not knowingly and intentionally violated a canon of the 
Church, that he has not openly and of set purpose broken 
his ordination vow. 

3. But on what possible ground can the Rector of St. G. 
have a defense, supposing him to be acquainted with the word- 
ing of the Canon, and supposing the facts in the case to be as 
alleged by common rumor? Conceivably, I reply, on a certain 
ambiguity in a single word in the canon, to wit, the word 
“officiate.” Are the Standing Com. prepared to show that the 
meaning of this term has ever been so adjudicated by a com- 
petent tribunal as to make it perfectly clear that the word 
covers the delivery of a public address? So far as I can 
discover, neither of our two standard canonists has a word to 
say on the matter. Etymologically it would appear that to 
“officiate” means to conduct offices, and a sermon can scarcely 
be called an office. “The Bishops and the Priests,” says Still- 
ingfleet (quoted in Webster Unabridged), “officiate at the 
altar.” In the canon on Lay-readers the word “officiate” 
seems to have been studiously avoided, and presumably it was 
as laymen (though not, it is true, as authorized lay readers) 
that the divines in question spoke at St. George’s Church. Ex- 
cept on some such ground as this, how can we justify the ad- 
dresses delivered in hundreds of our Churches, without com- 
plaint from anybody, by such men as Robt. Graves, Herbert 
Welsh, Mr. Low? It is not necessary to assume that an am- 
biguous word was intentionally given a place in the canon ; 
personally I should construe the law almost if not quite as 
strictly as the S. C. do, but I can not refuse to see that the 
language of the canon is such that a conscientious and right- 
minded clergyman might interpret it in the manner as above 
indicated. 


278 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


4, But if the language of the canon be indeterminate, why 
not settle it, once for all, the S. C. might ask, by a trial, a 
“friendly suit” if you please to call it such? Answer, “Very 
good; but in that case what persons could be named more 
competent to make the presentment in due form than the cleri- 
cal members of the Standing Committee?” Possibly, however, 
this would be that putting of the S. C. “into a hole” which 
you deprecate. 

Conclusion. From the above general consideration I draw 
the specific conclusion that it would be well for you to reply to 
the Standing Com. in a vein very similar to that of your note 
to me, calling attention to the fact that the traditional policy 
of this diocese has been tolerant and inclusive, and that as yet 
you cannot see your way to altering it; that you know that 
by taking this view of your duty you lay yourself open to the 
vulgar charge of trying to be all things to all men, but that 
you are content to labor under this imputation rather than 
do that which in your judgment would damage the best interests 
of the Church; that in saying this you by no means wish to 
bind yourself to a course of unlimited tolerance, since you can 
readily conceive of contigencies in which action would be im- 
perative, but that the particular contigencies to which your 
attention has been called do not seem to be of that char- 
acter, 

I do not know whether the above will commend itself to your 
judgment or not; but let me add that whichever course you 
may determine upon you will have, as my superior officer, as 
well as my Father in God, the best support I can give. I see 
plainly the difficulties of the situation, and I can see also how 
tempting in some light Bp. ’s example must appear,— 
and yet I am told (whether rightly or not) that as a public 
man that ecclesiastic is wholly without influence . . 

I would rather see you continue as you are at present, the 
recognised head of the Protestant population of the City and 
County of New York, than accredited by half of the Episco- 
palians of said city and county with being a most efficient 
administrator of canon law. 


279 





WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To THE Rev. A. C. A. Harty 


Grace Church Rectory, 
Thursday, June 18, 1891. 
My Dear Mr. Hatt: 

I have been equally. gratified and surprised by the tenor of 
your letter anent my “Bohlen Lectures,” received this morning. 
I should have said beforehand that my view of the measure of 
latitude that would have to be conceded on the two points of 
“sacraments” and “orders,” in order to bring the question of 
reunion within the circle of “practical politics,’ must make 
any concert of action between us impossible. I am both pleased 
and encouraged to find that, upon this point, I was mistaken. 
In fact, yours is the first and only expression of even a modified 
sympathy with my line of thought that has reached me from 
the “High Church” side, while from the opposite wing there 
has been a considerable demonstration of agreement. Natu- 
rally enough I was beginning to fear that I had been self- 
deceived in supposing that there was much in the book which 
even staunch Anglicans owght to accept, if only they would 
open their eyes to the really unparalleled and unique character 
of the conditions which, in this country, environ the whole prob- 
lem of unity... . 


To THE Rev. A. C. A. Hatt 


Northeast Harbor, Me., Aug. 17, 1891. 
My Dear Mr. Hatt: 

I write to express the pleasure and sense of cordial agreement 
with which I read your paper on Christian Unity published 
not long since in T'he Churchman. You have given me some 
intimations of the general drift of your argument in the kind 
letter you wrote me anent “The Peace of the Church,” but I was 
not prepared to find that we were holding so much ground in 
common. I am more and more convinced the longer I ponder 
the subject, that the real results of the promulgation of the 
Lambeth Platform are to be looked for within our own Com- 
munion, rather than in negotiations to be entered upon with 


280 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


other communions in their organized forms. Let us as a 
Church live up to our conception of what a national American 
Church ought to be with respect to inclusiveness, and we shall 
ipso facto become that nucleus or rallying center for which the 
lovers of unity of every name are seeking. 


To Miss LANGDON 


Sunday, Oct. 11, 1891. 
Dear Miss ANNE: 

Although it is my old-fashioned habit (some would say my 
pet superstition) not to write letters on Sunday, I cannot let 
your birthday, and particularly this birthday, go by without 
giving expression to my hope that all things may turn out hap- 
pily for you in this new year of life. 

I was sorry to have you say in your note of last Wednesday 
that you were sad at the thought of the conclusion of your 
work, for it looks to me as if that work had only just begun and 
as if the more important part of it lay in the future. Your 
position as Head of the “House Committee” makes it your duty 
to keep an oversight of what goes on at St. Faith’s ; and if you 
have enjoyed “fussing over” the furniture, much more ought 
you to enjoy fussing over the pupils, in whose hearts you have 
already won a warm place. If you can now and then take a 
meal at No. 228, or even pass a night there as Mrs. Hoffman’s 
guest sometime, while you are living out of town, you will, I 
am sure, be doing great good and it will help you, as nothing 
else could, to identify yourself with the life of the School. 
Yes, I count upon your getting a great deal of comfort, and 
upon your giving a great deal of happiness, through your per- 
sonal intercourse with those whose welfare you have already 
done so much to promote. I will send you to-day’s sermon, as 
I promised to do, but you will find it only another proof of 
what I have already told you more than once, that a sermon 
read is very different from and very inferior to a sermon heard. 
However, on your birthday you shall have your way, and no 
question asked. 

And now let me give you a watchword for the coming year. 


281 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


It is taken out of the beautiful prayer proper to this Twentieth 
Sunday after Trinity. 

“Ready, both in body and soul, cheerfully to accomplish the 
things which God commands.” 


To rue Rey. A. C. A. Hatrt 


Grace Church Rectory, 
Monday, Oct. 19, 1891. 
My Dear Mr. Hatt: : 

I am deeply pained by the announcement contained in the 
copy of The Record just received. Into the grave question 
whether a vow continues binding after a man has become con- 
scientiously persuaded that it ought never to have been made, 
I will not enter. It is a point, as you well know, upon which 
casuists are divided. My only object in writing is to express 
the grief I feel at your leaving this country just at the time 
when some of us, who for years distrusted you, have begun to 
see your character and aims in a truer light, and to rate you 
at your real value. 


Monday, 
May 30, 1892. 
Dear Miss Corzs: 

Last week was a very crowded one, and I found it impos- 
sible to reply to your interesting and important letter as 
fully as I wished to do. I take advantage of “Decoration 
Day,” when everything is very quiet about me, to write out my 
thoughts upon the points you have raised. In writing me as 
you did you obeyed a true instinct, and did precisely what I 
should have wished you to do. In sucha matter, the criticism 
of worshippers who are at once intelligent and devout is what 
is most of all valuable. Let me give you, then, my reasons 
for thinking that your apprehensions are ill-founded. In the 
first place, pray observe that nothing has been taken out of 
the Prayer Book. It is all there as it was before. “May” has 
been substituted for “shall” in certain rubrics, but there has 


282 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


been no excision of material. ‘The Confession,” the ‘Prayer 
for all conditions of Men,” and the “Gen. Thanksgiving” are 
all in their old places in the book. You reply,—‘But what 
of that, if they have been lost out of the actual service as ren- 
dered on Sundays?” To which my rejoinder is, that the 
remedy lies with any congregation which feels aggrieved. No 
“legislation” is necessary. If the worshippers in any parish 
feel that they have lost something precious in not having the 
privilege of listening to the Gen. Exhortation twice a day, I 
cannot believe that any Rector in the land would withhold the 
second reading if requested to give it. 

Briefly stated, the object of those who have contended for, 
and have succeeded in securing greater “flexibility” by means 
of turning mandatory rubrics into permissive ones, was this, 
namely, to make it possible to discover by experiment what 
sort of a Sunday morning and evening service of worship, the 
American people, or to speak accurately, the Anglican por- 
tion of the American people, did really desire. Few people re- 
alize how deeply true it is, that with respect to the work of the 
Episcopal Church in America, we are just at the beginning of 
things. After a century of struggle, we have just begun to get 
a hearing. The complaint which other Christian people have, 
all along, been bringing against us has been the ‘‘cast-iron” 
character of our services, their incapacity of adaptation. Now 
in this revision movement, we have been going, so to speak, 
halfway to meet this complaint. We have virtually said, 
“Come now, we will make our forms of worship more elastic, 
more flexible, more mobile, and you shall help us in determining 
what shape they shall finally assume. We want to supply you 
with the service best suited to your spiritual needs. What 
that may be we can only find out by trying, and we can only 
try if our hands are untied, and we allowed to experiment a 
little. Crystallization is impossible until the atoms are free 
to move.” I cannot help thinking that this view of the matter 
derives some support from what we have seen going on before 
our eyes during the last ten years. I do not myself remember 
any similar period when our Church seemed to be making such 


283 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


progress in the work of bringing people into sympathy with 
herself. I may be all wrong in my inferential reasoning, but 
honestly I am of opinion that Revision and the Lambeth pro- 
posals for unity have had a great deal to do in bringing about 
this better understanding. The “outsiders” have appreciated 
our motive and have come, in many cases, more than half way 
To:meect: 18! jy. 

As respects the omission of the Confession and Absolution 
from the morning office “when the Holy Communion is imme- 
diately to follow,” I cannot but think it an immense gain in the 
interest of sincerity and truth. We are warned in the N. 
Testament more than once against “vain repetitions” in our 
worship, and anything more “vain,” more unreal, than to ask 
one and the same congregation, within the same hour-and-a- 
half, solemnly and formally to make confession and solemnly 
and formally to be absolved, I cannot conceive. . . 

As to the hardship of not having an opportunity of praying 
for the clergy at Eve, Prayer, I would remind you that that 
will no longer trouble you if the Convention in October will 
only make obligatory the English versicles which “passed their 
preliminaries” three years ago. ‘“Endue thy ministers with 
righteousness,” though brief, is to my ear and heart a much 
more telling and beautiful supplication “For the clergy” than 
the present rather jejune collect which bears that title. And, 
by the way, the only opposition to these versicles which I have 
heard whispered, of late, has come from the Dio. of Penna. 
Can you be furthering your end better than by seeking to allay 
this opposition? 

As to the increased length of the notices in St. James’s 
Church,—you surely did not mean to charge that upon the 
revisionists. What it really means, I suppose is that your 
new broom is sweeping with unusual vigor. And now, dear 
Miss Coles, I am aware that I have n’t removed all your dif- 
ficulties, but do pray assure me that I have in a measure light- 
ened some of them, for I would almost as lief see revision un- 
done as be forced to think that such a true heart as yours 
has suffered serious spiritual loss. 


284 


AT GRACE CHURCH 


Grace Church Rectory, New York, 
Saturday. 
Dear Miss Mary: 

I am ever and ever so sorry that you cannot come over to 
the service, and the more so that continued illness should be the 
cause. Do take the very best care of yourself. 

I wish you could know how much more it means to me to have 
one whose friendship I value as I do yours, wish to have me for 
her bishop, than it could possibly mean to me to be chosen to the 
bishop’s office by formal vote. But there are more reasons than 
this note paper could hold why I ought not to be a bishop, and 
why I am better placed where I am than I could be elsewhere. 
I trust that innate laziness and love of comfort are not among 


them. They may be, God knows. But I hope not. 


Feb. 16, 1893. 

My Dear Mr. Moore: 

You and Mrs. Moore will, I trust, be pleased to hear that 
I have definitely decided not to allow my name to be used in 
connection with the vacant episcopate of Massachusetts. 

This involves no self-denial on my part, but is wholly in the 
line of my inclinations, which is my one and only reason for 
doubting the wisdom of the decision. 


Thursday, April 20, 1893. 
My Dear Nicnots: 

Your letter is most encouraging, and I thank you heartily for 
your live interest in the matter of a better circulation for “The 
Peace of the Church.” I regard the book as a “campaign docu- 
ment”; it was written “with a purpose,” and I therefore feel 
no author’s modesty whatsoever, but am glad to be told of any 
way in which more readers are likely to be found for what I 
have written. 

I shall take your suggestion of paper covers into careful 
consideration. Meanwhile, by making the book and its argu- 
ment known in Minneapolis you are preparing the ground for 
good seed in 1895. For the public opinion of the place in 

285 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


which a General Convention meets is no inconsiderable factor 
in the process which brings about the final result. I send you 
with this, six more copies to be distributed as you may judge 
best. As these are author’s copies, it might be well to remove 
from each of them the inserted slip marked “with the author’s 
compliments” before you give them away,—only please keep 
one of these slips as your own. 


Dec. 27, 18938. 
My Dear Miss FEettowes: | 

Ever since my nervous break-down in 1888 (from the ef- 
fects of which I have never wholly recovered) my memory has 
from time to time played me mortifying tricks, but never, with 
a single exception, one that has distressed me as this one has 
done. Even now I cannot understand how the thing happened. 

Enclosed is a page from my memorandum book, all the entries 
having apparently been made at the same time, and your gift 
and Miss Clark’s stand as you will see, side by side. I remem- 
ber feeling at the time a little perplexed by the number of the 
offers which came to me all at once, but how I could have be- 
come confused upon a point involving personal affection I sim- 
ply do not understand. It will be a great comfort to me under 
the circumstances, if you will let me unite my memorial with 
yours, by providing a book similar to the one on the “Gospel 
side” of the communion table for the Epistle side, also the book- 
rest for it. The reason why I did not include this second book 
in my original order was that I did not think there would be 
any need for it, but now that the large Prayer Book has been 
placed in the center, I see that the book on the left should be 
balanced by one on the right, and I also rather fancy the idea 
of having particular books from which respectively to read the 
Gospel & the Epistle... , 


286 


x 


AT GRACE CHURCH: THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN 


fhe rector of Grace Church was inevitably, by 


the nature of the case, a marked citizen of New 

York. If the affairs of citizenship made ap- 
peal to him, the rector could easily become a leader of 
influence. Affairs of city and state did distinctly make 
appeal to Dr. Huntington. When the chance of going 
to New York came to him, one of the inducements in 
accepting that invitation was undoubtedly the appeal 
that derived from the fact that Grace Church gave its 
rector a position of influence in the city. He felt 
strongly that a parish church in the heart of a great 
city, especially a church which occupied a position of 
such prominence in the down-town section of the city, 
must in every possible way serve that city’s life. There 
were many matters in which in the course of his rector- 
ship he interested himself, for the sake of promoting the 
cause of righteousness. 

In the movements for street cleaning, both physical 
and moral, he was found at the forefront. Again and 
again he moved for the preservation of a true Sunday 
for the sake of the people. He protested against the 
opening of school buildings on Sunday. In 1895 he 
opposed the move for local option for New York City 

287 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


in regard to the Sunday law, arguing that Sunday ob- 
servance is an essential and permanent feature of Chris- 
tian morality, under which the people of the whole State 
are living. In 1901 he took a prominent position in 
support of Governor Hughes in his crusade against 
race-track gambling, and preached a strong sermon on 
the gambling craze in society, containing a scathing 
arraignment of women in high places who played for 
jewels which when won they wore as trophies of their 
success, citing at the same time cases of young men who 
as victims of the women’s craze were impoverished and 
ruined. In commending this sermon one of his friends 
wrote, “We want more of the terrier instinct in the 
ministry, to root out the evils which fester in society.” 
In 1902, in connection with the debates concerning the 
Raines Law, he was outspoken in his declarations that 
New York must have no drunken Sunday. The Puri- 
tan which was in him came to the fore when he was thus 
pleading for reforms. No one who knew him could 
fail to sense this Puritan strain. It belonged to him 
of right because of his New England blood. In the 
strictness with which from the first his family life had 
been governed it was evident. The prohibition of 
dancing which he maintained for his own children 
would seem to-day old-fashioned in the extreme. The 
same Puritan spirit came joyously to the fore when 
upon occasions he addressed the New England Society 
of New York, or other societies of a historical char- 
acter. It must be recognized, however, that his Puri- 
288 





668l AO MOOd WHAVUd GCUVGNVALS AHL 


ite — ees 
=A 


7, 


uaa {uOSNAOSY SHOLO[T pure MON aLMser AQy ATUL SI] 
‘qyvop snowed puv uoiserd possoyq sNy souwIquiont 
“At Uy uLAavy SoyVUl 0} MN popuvELUIOD YZEY HOS AT 
JULIOMOUL SY} ‘Set OFUN AQYO MOT GAL TPOTPM Sys 
Ajoy £47 osaqy La “Qeolvyy ents Ayy o1ojoq 10 
aYVUL puR oywaqayoo op ‘SyuNssos ajquny Ayy ‘ass 
4SLIqD snsep MOLANG Ino Woy poaojeq Aprwep ATy Jo 
TOYNJYSUT 943 0} Furpsogor “royyPR 
spaoawoy PUY POT O TUOATY 
‘UI\JO oITEAqmDUt 
A UY 4 yup preys ef sv Yo su ‘HIGy 
og {SUIS Jo WOIsSTUTAI ayy soy “AUOUL 105 
pue ‘nod aoy pays Si Yor ‘yueUTEySoy, 
AMON ony Jo poor Aut at siya (9) toy $smp 
Jo tre od yung “durtus ‘tey} 0} yt eau 
ay ‘SyUNy] WOALT pey ey uaTTA pow ‘dn 
* ay} yoo} oy (p) ‘toddns teye ‘ostaoyry 
“OU JO GOURATUATIAL UT ST} OT + NOS IOP 
wots st yoryas ‘Apog Aut st sry (2) Guo 
Syuy, Surtes ‘seidiosip sry 07 Ft osud 


432 527 
2 ees. 


#2 


TOYA pur {pug yoo} oy (p) ‘poserjeq 
SRA oY TOMA Ui WPA Oy} UL AO] | UTE 
Surmto09 sty yHUN ‘woywors pue Yep 
snowerd sm yey} Jo Aromat pungedaod 
2 ‘anuyuos oj sn puvurmeo jedsop Ajoy sty Ut pus 
‘oPQISU PIP PUB A PpOar ofOTA otf} JO SUH otf} OF 
LOR RSHRS Pre ‘Ory[qo ‘SoyLious FuoioysNs PUY Jooy 
-aed ‘Toy 8 (perayo aouo JjestaTy Jo UONUTAO eUO Sty 
fq} asom open om Snonduopos mo toy S804.) 04} 
uodn yjuap Jagns 07 IsLIyO sheep Uog [uO oUTyR oat 
4sprp ‘fozou1 sapusy Ayy Jo “voy FEU} JO} SOYIBG, 
+ Suaavey mo ‘poy AySrarpy ‘eoy} 04 oq As0|F TT 
eee : ep ‘aOIgMIDASTO: ak HARE 
fy os Beg oun a oy RYO pw ‘plo fe Pout 
azowe on yeas Rows ay peng) "Ong PHO 
nL wey viofog Buapmngy “47 Al WEA BS 
*NOINANKROO BBL 


ei 


Ss 2 2 oi 
+> Rea, 


pire 41 oymaq oy (q) ‘syuRTy Teas puy ey 


PESTO?) 


pur ‘wry wr Yeap etouLdoAS AvaT om gRY} pav ‘poor 
snowedd yao sty Ysnoay poysva smos ano pur 
‘Apoq sty 4q uvojo open oq Aut sarpoq usuts mo 
30U3 "pool Sty YULp Oo} paw YsENp suse og avap 
AQ} JO SOY OY} Ywo OF O8 “PIOT] sOMRIT HAQja1oyy 
SM juwig) ¢ Sorat Any oF RARAE st Apr0doad osoT.A. 
‘POT owes on) yaw nou yng ‘opquy, Aq aopun 
squindia ayj3 dn «94S 07 su ygonnr os sqjQI0M jou 
OB OAL “HOKMOUT yread puv projet AT} UT nq ‘esau 
‘SHOSPYIA WAKO MoO ut Buysnay ‘paoy ~aowu 4 
O ‘e1qey, Any STq] 0} OUIOD 0} alsa you op i 
Pusnoyel 
EDIT WAY ‘roMRMMOD IYp 9419004 im 860 pf 
aah wi Roo eng spsny ay) 0 eno Garvey eps 4h 018 MOLT 
3 
“90 ‘gyaairy 
(HIM eropoayT,  “‘pRaypos fuuteyg, Aqy ur oayy qBLA 
ONO BY OYA iaysarmMeg any GRO, ApoP] oy} JO 
Sh 0} AUTPUAS Or} Tog PUR PAO] aMo ISEIGD sHsp 
nog qi Jo stom pur weep euotoed on) YO 
Ru0} so 

sa pauspjes Buray taouieg MOH) opie 4 pret 29 Rowe sy 8 10 & 

: ‘aja sppRuy 
TL Hopuayy, “Agwnbout ao oouszagrp fom JnoyL 


*4Soty) ATOPY Ot} Jo puw ‘nog oly Jo svotyoq oa ous - 





ayy SeryNy any fo La0p any Jo aroypoy ox Yoryar 
10]  “BOURISGNS ouO UT SUORIET-dary} yng ‘UO 
stag Ayuo auo jou fpaory oue ‘poy oue yu OH] ; 


‘pine og Rom ‘yuo Sanur, fo veg oyj wod)y 
up ‘spauy WPA a1operoy.y, 


ISLE IC. 


“of 


° aad 
mS 


\2 


<< 





THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN 


tanism was for the most part sweetened by sane 
reasonableness. 

As a citizen among citizens, he was recognized as a 
sympathetic champion of the right by all classes and 
conditions. The cordial relations which he always 
maintained with the Jews of New York provided an 
example of this. When it was determined that what 
had been known as the Pro-cathedral in Stanton Street 
was to receive the designation of the “House of Aquila 
and the Chapel of St. Priscilla,’ Dr. Huntington 


wrote: 


What better name-saints could the work in Stanton Street 
possibly have than such as these, Hebrews by descent, working- 
people by occupation, and qualified by native intelligence to 
teach even an Apollos. We find ourselves environed in Stanton 
Street by a dense Hebrew population. We are not invaders 
from without, we simply stand where we have always been and 
try to do our duty by those whom God in his Providence has 
permitted to surround us, as best we may, not eager to make 
converts from among those who are satisfied with the religion 
they have, but there to welcome any who, having lost faith in 
God as he is presented to them in Judaism, feel attracted to 
him as he is presented in Christianity. 


In regard to educational matters he was ever ap- 
pealed to for counsel, or for assistance as to legislation 
which might be in progress in Albany. He discussed 
more than once the problem of religious education in 
the schools. The position which he took was that there 
ought to be opportunity offered in the public schools 
for the teaching of morals and for religion, which lay at 

289 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


the basis of all ethical training, and that this opportun- 
ity ought to be provided according to the parents’ 
choice. 

As regards the larger affairs of state, matters which 
were of a national scope, his interest was always keen, 
and at times of crisis men listened to him gladly for 
words of wisdom or reassurance. 'The one occasion in 
which he took a prominent and eager part in national 
affairs, was the situation brought about as a result of 
the Spanish War and of the events which followed it. 
He had no patience with the policies of expansion. He 
was a strong and outspoken anti-imperialist, and in 
1898 he preached against “bartering away the nation’s 
souls for coaling-stations and the Pacific trade.” He 
exerted all the influence he could bring to bear against 
what seemed to him the mistaken policies of the admin- 
istration; and in 1904 he was a member of the Philip- 
pines Independence Commission. 

In considering Dr. Huntington’s activity in relation 
to the Church at large, it must not be forgotten that 
while the main interest with him was always the con- 
cerns which centered about Prayer Book revision and 
Church unity, he nevertheless had his share in a far- 
reaching way in other problems of the Church, and espe- 
cially in matters which became the occasion of 
debate in the successive meetings of the General Con- 
vention. For many years he was a member of the 
Board of Missions, and all questions involving mission- 
ary interest had his profoundest sympathy. In the dis- 
cussions which proceeded in regard to the provincial 

290 


THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN 


system, he was for years of the opinion that the provinces 
should be on state lines, although later coming to the 
conviction that this was impracticable. He entered 
into debates regarding the vexed question of suffragan 
bishops, as to whether they should be purely racial or 
permitted in large dioceses, and as to whether they 
should be granted votes in Convention. So far as ra- 
cial questions were concerned, he expressed himself in 
no measured terms on the full rights of the colored peo- 
ple within the Church. He was deeply interested in 
the question as to the permissive use of later translations 
of the Bible in the churches, and as to the best arrange- 
ment of the Tables of Lessons. He was on the Lec- 
tionary Commission as early as 1877, serving on the 
Committee on the Old Testament Daily Lessons; and 
in 1901 he rejoiced in the adoption of the marginal 
Bible with its opportunity of corrected readings in ac- 
cordance with the Revised Version. He took part in 
the discussions which centered about the proposed revi- 
sion of the canon on marriage and divorce, standing out 
against the movement led by Bishop Doane and others, 
for a more drastic law which should absolutely forbid 
the remarriage of any divorced person with a husband 
or wife living. Writing to the press on this matter in 
1899 he says: 


It is clear to every reader of the Gospels that our Lord, in 
denouncing the practice of divorce, indicated one exception to 
the working of the general principle. Scholars are not agreed 
as to the exact purport of that single exception. 

But, if anything is clear, this is clear, that a law concerning 


291 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


marriage and divorce which fails to recognize one exception, 
whatever else it may be, is not the law of Christ. We may 
maintain that it is an improvement upon the law of Christ, we 
may hold that by “developing of doctrine” it has been evolved 
from the law of Christ; but that it is other than the law of 
Christ in this one point, namely, that it recognizes no single 
exception, would appear to be self-evident. 

From this well-considered position, thoughtful men and 
women who hold it, will not be shaken by any temporary panic 
caused by local scandals, or by individual cases of flagrant 
misdoing which deserve all the censure they have received. 


Many correspondents turned to Dr. Huntington as 
a recognized leader for the establishment of a sound 
policy in this matter. It was coming to be discovered 
that legislation regarding divorce, on the part of the 
Church, was, perhaps, not as vital as action look- 
ing toward better state laws; and that it was not 
as important for the Church to concern itself about 
divorce as it was to concern itself about marriage. 
“The Church,” writes Mrs. Trask, in a long letter to 
Dr. Huntington, “has been concerning itself for years 
with this question of divorce. Why does it not, with 
common logic and rational grasp of life, concern itself 
first with that which antedates divorce, namely, mar- 
riage. Why, my dear Dr. Huntington, will not you, 
to whom has been granted the vision, awaken the 
Church to the needs of a legislation that will uplift pos- 
terity as well as protect the family? Have not you so 
finely said, ‘If these human relationships shadow forth 
qualities inherent in the very nature of Him in whose 
image man was made, then they enjoy a sanction which 

292 


THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN 


the world neither gives nor can take away, and we may 
count upon them as permanent possessions.’ ” This 
letter was written in 1904. In 1901, when Dr. Hunt- 
ington was in San Francisco Convention, an outside 
reader of the controversy sent him a quotation from the 
Archbishop of Canterbury in 1899, as follows: 

“The Book of Common Prayer does not pronounce 
marriage indissoluble. It declares that whom God 
hath joined together no man may put asunder. Our 
Lord’s exception in the case of adultery shows that a 
divorce in such a case is not man’s but the Lord’s.” 
The writer continues, “Brought up in France in a nest 
of priests, and familiar with Roman Catholic countries, 
I am of opinion, that where divorce laws are most strin- 
gent morality is most lax.” 

The main concern of Dr. Huntington in the first 
decade of his rectorship at Grace Church, so far as the 
Church at large is concerned, was the completion of the 
work of Prayer Book revision. The progress of re- 
vision in 1883, with the enthusiastic reception which the 
“Book Annexed” had received in the Convention that 
year, had been too markedly successful. It gave in it- 
self promise of an inevitable reaction. No one saw 
this more clearly than Dr. Huntington himself. He 
felt that it was inevitable that in the Convention of 1886 
the forces of opposition would rally to a most deter- 
mined stand. He did his utmost during the three years 
which intervened, through his public writings and cor- 
respondence, to prepare to meet this opposition and so 
far as he could to forestall it. One thing had been 

293 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


finally accomplished by the Convention of 1883; that 
was the recognition everywhere of Dr. Huntington's 
leadership in this cause. The acceptance of this leader- 
ship, and the confidence which people felt in it, rested 
in the first instance upon an understanding of the basic 
principles upon which Dr. Huntington proceeded in his 
advocacy. These principles are to be found in an in- 
teresting form in a little red note-book begun by him 
in 1880 when the process of revision was inaugurated, 
and dedicated to “Jottings Relative to Revision.” In 
this book, in his own hand and over his initials, we read: 


The revision of our Book of Common Prayer, if revision there 
is to be, ought to be taken in hand by men who, to an intense 
realization of the fact that they are Americans and not English- 
men, add an equally intense reverence for the forms and tradi- 
tions of Anglican religion, The book, if dealt with at all, 
should be handled neither in a revolutionary nor in an anti- 
quarian spirit. 


And again: 


Looked at merely philosophically and wholly apart from our 
faith in the divine superintendence of the fortunes of the People 
of God, of this book it may be said that assuredly it will 
survive. We have reached an epoch in the history as a 
Church, the clock has struck the hour for a new start and we 
know it. We have shaken off the colonial atmosphere which 
has clung about us for three generations, and realize that as 
a branch of Christ’s church, placed in a new continent, we have 
a duty laid on us, to perform which will doubtless be difficult 
but to shirk which is to die. Caution is well. We have it as 
a Church in abundance and I thank God we have. Unless our 
whole past history belies us there is little danger of our acting 


294 


THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN 


incautiously ; but let it not be said hereafter in derision that 
it was reserved to the Protestant Episcopalians of America to 
discover and to illustrate a new note of the Church—timidity. 


Even the most outspoken foes of revision testified 
to Dr. Huntington’s leadership. English High- 
churchmen referred to the whole movement as “imperti- 
nent meddling.”’ Anonymous letters came to him; one, 
signed “Old Saint Ann’s,” exclaimed, “Hands off the 
ark of God, young man!” 'Those who were very dis- 
tinctly his friends and his supporters in the work 
brought to him their criticisms or their reasoned 
thoughts upon the matter. Dr. Greer objected to the 
“Book Annexed” on the ground that it did not touch 
doctrine. Dr. Shields, the most sympathetic of all out- 
siders, urged a disentanglement of the Catholic and 
Protestant elements of the Prayer Book. “He means 
liturgically,”’ he says, “so that in both Morning Prayer 
and in the Holy Communion, the Latin, monastic, 
choral, artistical, ritual, liturgical; and the English, 
popular, didactic, extemporaneous, congregational, 
should be separated, to be used apart, or at times to- 
gether.” Dr. A. V. G. Allen, as might be expected 
of him, wrote: “It is one of the difficulties of our 
Prayer Book, I think perhaps it may be said to include 
all the others, certainly most of them, that it is 
modeled too exclusively after the Latin cultus of the 
Middle Ages, and not sufficiently after a higher cultus 
which prevailed in the ante-Nicene age, and traces 
of which may be seen still in the Greek liturgies. 
The Greeks looked at revelation, to use the phrase of 

295 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


the Bishop of Carlisle, as light; the Latins looked at it 
on its ritual side as an expiation or atonement for sin. 
I should like to see our Communion Office remodeled 
upon the basis of the Greek ideas of anthropology and 
soteriology, which are more free, more true, to human 
nature. It is no easy thing to adjust the proportions 
of the dignity of human nature to the proper abasement 
for our sin, but to extend the latter is quite as bad as to 
exaggerate the former. The Church of England is 
the daughter of a Latin mother, much as her friends 
like to proclaim her as a distinct branch of the Church 
Catholic from the beginning. By ritualism I under- 
stand generally that ecclesiastical tendency in our time 
which magnifies every lingering trace of our Latin 
parentage, and is utterly impervious to those good in- 
fluences which are equally our heritage.” Phillips 
Brooks had written to him at the close of the previous 
Convention of 1883: “Now that it is all over will you 
let me congratulate you, and tell you how great pride 
and admiration I have felt as I have watched you for 
the past three weeks. It is probably very impertinent 
to do anything of the sort, but I can’t help it. In the 
midst of the clatter of Judd, and Fulton and Harrison 
and Hay and Sheffey and the rest of us ignoble ones, to 
have kept one’s dignity and courtesy and patience un- 
disturbed, to charm those whom one led, and to have 
made those who might not have seen the whole value of 
the work, love it for the workman’s sake, that certainly 
is a triumph which ought to make a man submit to the 
most impertinent congratulations of one’s friends.” 
296 


THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN 


This was typical of many letters. Several years after 
the letter previously quoted from Dr. Allen, but before 
the Convention of 1886, Dr. Allen wrote again: “You 
have done in some respects a work the most remarkable 
that has been accomplished in these 300 years or more 
since the Reformation, a work which I think is not going 
to stop with the American Church, but must also in- 
fluence the English Church. It is certainly enough as 
a life-work for one man to have accomplished. I don’t 
believe that anyone could have done it but yourself, and 
you have been able to do it, perhaps, because you have 
never failed to see instinctively and truly the real sig- 
nificance of the high church movement, while still in 
sympathy with advancing thought which its conserva- 
tism would have led it to shun. However you may have 
done it, it is a marvellous thing to have accomplished; 
for I am sure that it is accomplished, even though there 
should be some longer delay before you reap the bene- 
fit of it. I call it marvellous, because the conservatism 
which guarded the Prayer Book as too sacred to be 
touched, is at last obliged to yield. Now that the book 
has been enlarged by enrichment, other changes will 
follow, though it may not be in this generation. Weare 
entering upon a creative epoch in ritual, for the first 
time since the Middle Ages, and it will be impossible 
to stop where we are.” 

Before the Convention of 1886 opened, a layman, 
writing of a layman’s needs, sympathetic but apprehen- 
sive, says, “I believe that among devoted worshippers 
there is a growing aversion to participation in services 

297 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


which are abbreviated, and rendered amorphous by ca- 
pricious and conceited iconoclasm.” At the same time 
one of Dr. Huntington’s supporters wrote: “The real 
objections to the alterations are about three. First, 
objections to the phraseology of certain offices; where 
valid, recommit these for amendment. Second, objec- 
tions by those like ‘the finicky little Miss Nancy of 
’ who will oppose every and any change, just be- 
cause they won’t change anything. Third, the large 
number who do not want any action that will imply the 
application of rubrics to prevent what they call the 
exercise of their priestly liberties.” 

When it came to the Convention itself Dr. Hunting- 
ton made a notable speech in defense of a resolution 
which should continue, and so far as possible ratify, 
the action of 1883 and make the new Prayer Book 
possible in 1889. After deprecating any consideration 
on the part of the Convention for the Commission if 
their work should be rejected, or for the Commission’s 
disappointment, and repudiating with vehemence the 
appeal ad misericordiam he closed his speech as follows: 





Just before leaving home on Monday my eye fell on a tele- 
graphic despatch from the City of Chicago to one of the New 
York morning papers. It was the work undoubtedly of a jour- 
nalist, but as evidently a sample of the kind of journalism tech- 
nically known as “inspired.” The hands were the hands of 
Esau but the voice was Jacob’s voice. I shall have to para- 
phrase the language of the passage for I preserved no copy of 
it, but I hold myself responsible for the substantial accuracy 
of this quotation. ‘The method,” said the journalist, “by 
which the revision movement is to be defeated will be to 


298 


THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN 


propose the formation of a new committee, to deliberate afresh 
upon the subject and to confer with the convocations of the 
Church of England. It will probably be ten years before this 
Committee will be ready to report; and another ten years will 
be consumed on the negotiation with York and Canterbury. 
And thus,” he adds, “the revision will be let down easily.” 

Mr. President, I am of opinion that the despatch in no de- 
gree over-stated the probable measure of the delay, should de- 
lay be accepted as our policy. | 

But what are these twenty years of which our journalist 
speaks so jauntily? They are the closing years of the 19th 
century, freighted full as perhaps no other twenty years have 
ever been, will ever be, with the destinies of America. In that 
marvellous little book, which ought to be not only read but 
studied by every intelligent citizen of the Republic, a book which 
draws its inspiration almost in equal measure from the New 
Testament and from the Census of 1880, I mean the volume is- 
sued in the interests of Home Missions and entitled Our Coun- 
try, strong reasons are given for accounting these next twenty 
years the most momentous of any that are likely to come and 
go while this country is in the process of being peopled. I 
will not rehearse these reasons, but this I will say, that the 
charge of Americanism brought against the work of the Com- 
mittee of 21 is a charge I am not careful to refute. If by 
Americanism be meant a willingness to concede something, for 
popularity’s sake, to the bad traits of the national character, 
to the recklessness, the boastfulness, the unreason that are by 
some thought to be characteristics of our people, for such Amer- 
icanism as that I would have no pity. But where, I ask, in the 
pages of the Book Annexed, are traces of such Americanism 
to be found? The only passage anywhere bearing upon the 
point that I recall is the following from one of the prayers. 
. . . If again by Americanism be meant departure from the 
standard of pure and wholesome English, set forth to be an 
everlasting heritage for the peoples of our blood, why then 
again I say that for Americanism of that sort I would have no 
pity. But the truth is that the phraseology of the proposed 


299 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


enrichments of the Prayer Book is almost wholly drawn from 
the best English sources. Most of the charges of crudeness 
brought against the Book Annewed during the last three years 
have cautiously been expressed in general terms and with a 
noticeable avoidance of specifications. And of course when 
the specifications have been ventured, there have been not a few 
in which the crudeness was found to be in the critic rather 
than in the thing criticised. 

But if by Americanism be meant a keen appreciation of 
those features of our national life that are confessedly extraor- 
dinary and unparalleled, and a warm sympathy with those as- 
pirations of the national mind and heart that look towards 
solving, here between the oceans, the great problem of Christian 
unity, why then I say that in my judgment Americanism is 
the one qualification of which the revision of an American Book 
of Common Prayer ought not to be devoid. 

Mr. President, humanly speaking it certainly seems unlikely 
that we shall succeed in reconciling the divergent views that 
are known to exist among members of this house, with respect 
to the question of revision. But there is another way of 
speaking besides what is meant by speaking humanly; there is 
such a thing as speaking in the assurance of faith. And speak- 
ing in the assurance of faith, I am bold to predict, and sanguine 
enough to expect, that before the Convention of 1886 dissolves 
it will have attained to a unanimity with respect to what Israel 
ought to do, as memorable as that attained in the City of 
Brotherly Love three years ago. 


His appeal was of no avail. The Convention was 
determined to recommit the whole subject to a new 
committee for review and for future report. When 
this action was accomplished, Dr. Huntington was 
naturally placed upon this committee. He refused, 
however, to serve. At the time, this was interpreted by 
some people as due to pique because of the failure of 
his program. This was, however, far from being the 

300 


THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN 


case. He perceived instantly, and as usual with accu- 
rate judgment, that he could serve the cause best from 
the outside, reviewing from that vantage-point the work 
of the new committee, and preparing himself for such 
guidance in the revision movement from the floor of 
Convention as might seem wise to him. ‘This course 
he pursued in the years which followed. His acknow- 
ledged leadership was unimpaired by the fact that he 
was not a member of the new committee. Moreover, 
he was far from discouraged by the result of his Con- 
vention work. In the sermon which he preached in 
Grace Church after the close of the Convention he said: 


Such is the natural and proper dread which devout natures 
entertain of any change, even the slightest, in long-loved for- 
mulas of worship, that a panic fear was aroused in the Church 
shortly after the promulgation of the acts of the Convention 
of 1883, that some terrible revolution must be impending. So 
great has been the clamor, occasioned by comparatively few 
voices, as it now appears, that the expectation was wide-spread 
throughout the Church that one of the first things done at 
Chicago would be the quiet but decisive laying aside of the 
whole matter. The event has proved a most salutary lesson 
in the interpretation of public opinion, and is singularly re- 
assuring in the evidence it gives of stability of purpose on the 
part of our Church legislators, for, although a great part, and 
I may say the better part, of what was done at Philadelphia, 
stands postponed three years longer for want of time to give it 
proper consideration at this session, of the portion which was 
fully discussed and carefully deliberated upon in both houses, 
something like ninety one-hundredths was adopted, and that 
with a unanimity which, at least so far as the House of Deputies 
was concerned, surpassed what had been accounted almost 
miraculous three years before. I mention these points in no 
spirit of boastfulness, as a friend of revision, God forbid! but 


301 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


simply and wholly for the purpose of reassuring timid souls, 
who fear that something which they greatly prize may have 
been taken away from them by hasty action or by the vote of 
narrow majorities. It is not likely that decisions to which nine- 
tenths of your representatives, after long debate assented, will 
disappoint or vex you when the results come to be seen. 


In the Conventions of 1889 and 1892, and in the 
years between, the careful work of Dr. Huntington 
left its mark on the whole progress of revision. The 
work on a standard book, which finally emanated from 
the Convention of 1892, is in itself a monument of note 
in the whole history of liturgics. In the preparation of 
the report, and finally of the book itself, Dr. Huntington 
had a prominent part, and it was a matter of special re- 
joicing to him that the volume itself which was ulti- 
mately produced was typographically and artistically so 
notable a production. After the final outcome, ex- 
pressions of appreciation regarding the work of revi- 
sion, and regarding the part which he had played in it, 
came to him from all over the world, from England and 
also from Canada and from Africa, from all parts of the 
Church where the Book of Common Prayer is treasured 
and used. Personal letters of grateful appreciation 
came to him without number, one friend writing, “Be- 
tween the lines on every page, I read W. R. H., his 
mark.” 


302 


XI 
AT GRACE CHURCH: HERESIES 


A qHE year 1906 was marked in the Church’s his- 

tory by the trial for heresy of Dr. Crapsey. 

The charges brought against Dr. Crapsey were 
based upon published utterances in regard to the inter- 
pretation of the creeds, especially in relation to the 
Virgin Birth and Resurrection of our Lord, and in re- 
gard to other matters relating to New Testament criti- 
cism. 

Dr. Crapsey was condemned. This was esteemed 
by some to have been, in any case, a foregone conclu- 
sion in the diocese in which he was tried. ‘This diocese, 
that of Western New York, in its bishop and clergy, 
was known to be of a traditionalist type. It was freely 
admitted that had Dr. Crapsey been tried in some other 
diocese he would doubtless have been acquitted. 

The result of the trial, as is usually the case in trials 
for heresy, while technically a condemnation of Dr. 
Crapsey’s views, was in reality the marking of a step 
forward in the realization of freedom within the Church. 
Its real effect was to establish the legitimacy of New 
Testament criticism, and the principle that flexibility of 
interpretation is of the essence of the creeds. 

There had been an attempt in the year 1894 on the 

303 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


part of the House of Bishops to promulgate the notion 
that fixity of interpretation is of the essence of the 
creeds. 

This unfortunate phrase had raised strong protest in 
the Church. The phrase had occurred in a so-called 
pastoral letter, emanating from a special session of the 
House of Bishops at that time. The Pastoral Letter 
was canonically a letter issued by the House of Bishops 
at the time of a General Convention, on the reception 
by that House of the Report on the State of the Church 
sent to it by the House of Deputies. The irregularity 
of the procedure in itself created a criticism which the 
phrase above referred to tended to intensify. The out- 
standing utterances at the trial of Dr. Crapsey were 
the masterly defense prepared by Mr. Edward M. 
Shepard, and the speeches in line with it made by Dr. 
Elwood Worcester and Dr. Samuel McComb. 

It was a disappointment to many of the friends of 
Dr. Huntington that he did not come out in support of 
the position for which Dr. Crapsey stood. It was 
felt that he was essentially in sympathy with the liberal 
and progressive movement in the Church. In a sense, 
it may be said that it was a disappointment to Dr. 
Huntington himself, not to come out upon this side in 
the debate. In saying this, it is meant that there was 
no doubt a conflict within himself as to the attitude 
which he ought to take in the matter. It is not meant, 
however, that if he had been free he would necessarily 
have become a champion of Dr. Crapsey. The fact of 
the matter was that he was not free. He esteemed 

304 


HERESIES 


himself, and rightly, prohibited from making any state- 
ment whatever on the matter; and for the reason that 
he was a member of the Court of Review of the Prov- 
ince, to which, if there were an appeal, the case must 
inevitably be sent. It was clearly impossible for him to 
judge the case in advance, and he maintained a scrupu- 
lous silence. Those who felt that in Dr. Huntington 
they would find a champion for the liberal cause were 
fortified in their opinion by his attitude in the Briggs 
case. Seven years before, Dr. Briggs had been es- 
teemed a heretic in the Presbyterian Church, and had 
finally decided to leave that church and to seek ordina- 
tion in the Episcopal Church. Dr. Clendenin, a High- 
churchman, who was the rector of the church where he 
would have been ordained, refused to allow the service 
to take place there. Dr. Huntington sprang to the de- 
fense of Dr. Briggs, and in a letter to the “New York 
Tribune” said: 


I have read with surprise and pain the column in this morn- 
ing’s “Tribune” relating to the ordination of Dr. Briggs. I 
desire no controversy with the rector of St. Peter’s Church, 
West Chester, who may be well within his rights when protesting 
against the use of his parish church for a purpose of which he, 
personally, disapproves; but when he characterizes the teach- 
ings of a brother clergyman in terms likely to mislead the 
casual reader, a word of counter-protest may not be out of 
place. ‘The best general reply to Dr. Clendenin’s bitter denun- 
ciation of Dr. Briggs, as a depraver of the Word of God, will 
be to quote the opening paragraph of the first chapter of the 
learned work which has provoked this assault. . . . Dr. Clen- 
denin is described in your columns as “a staunch and moderate 
High Church man.” I marvel that in that capacity he should 

305 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


censure so severely a divine who is the valued friend, the rec- 
ognized peer and the trusted co-laborer of such distinguished 
Anglicans as the Rev. Dr. Driver, regius professor of Hebrew 
at Oxford, the Rev. Dr. Kirkpatrick, regius professor of He- 
brew at Cambridge, and the Rev. Dr. Sanday, Lady Margaret 
professor of divinity at Oxford. ‘These men represent the very 
best scholarship of the Church of England to-day, and are rec- 
ognized as leaders in religion as well as in theology. Doubtless 
Dr. Clendenin himself is a diligent and admiring reader of their 
works. 3 

It is no part of my purpose to apologize for Dr. Briggs. 
He is a scholar whom any communion in Christendom might 
be proud to number among its clergy. Among distinguished 
Americans there is probably not one more widely misunderstood. 
Detraction has followed him so relentlessly that in some parts 
of the country he stands, in the popular mind, as a sort of or- 
dained Ingersoll. Injustice could no further go... . 

I need only add that immediately upon reading the protest 
of the rector of St. Peter’s, West Chester, whose motives, let 
me say again, I have no disposition to impugn, I wrote to 
Bishop Potter offering him the use of Grace Church for the 
ordination. If my offer is accepted and acted upon, I shall 
feel that our parish church has been indeed honored by the 
event. 


There was excitement on both sides. High- 
churchmen, many of whom it would appear had never 
read Dr. Briggs’s books, were convinced of his hereti- 
cal opinions. It was, perhaps, his Presbyterianism 
rather than his heresies that at heart disturbed them. 
On the other side, a prominent Broad-churchman wrote 
to Dr. Huntington, expressing fear that Bishop Potter 
might be moved against the planned ordination, and 
said that he hoped the bishop would go ahead, armed 
with a policeman rather than with a sermon. When 

306 


HERESIES 


Dr. Huntington sent this letter to Bishop Potter, he 
returned it with the comment written across the back, 
“Tell this brother to calm himself.” The excitement 
seems at this date somewhat difficult to understand. It 
was doubtless felt, however, by Dr. Huntington that 
the Episcopal Church’s comprehensiveness was on 
trial. He was, in a word, a liberal in spirit rather than 
a liberal in theology. 

That he was deeply distressed by the whole proceed- 
ing in the Crapsey case, and at heart of the opinion that 
a trial for heresy was an anachronism, is evident. He 
remarked on one occasion to a friend, ‘There can be 
nothing worse than an unsuccessful heresy trial, unless 
it be a successful one.” He would, nevertheless, at the 
outset doubtless have felt obliged to take sides against 
Dr. Crapsey, had he been free to speak or act in the 
matter. ‘The explanation of this is not far to seek. In 
the first place, he had never been a very careful student 
of modern criticism as related to the New Testament; 
and, in the second place, all of his instincts and convic- 
tions tended to make him adhere to traditional views 
in regard to the Gospel narratives, and to strict inter- 
pretation in regard to clauses of the Creed. An ob- 
server at the second trial before the Court of Review, a 
pronounced Broad-churchman and a layman, testified 
that to him it seemed that Dr. Huntington was out of 
touch with the men and women of the younger genera- 
tion. This was shown, he thought, by his evident 
surprise at Mr. Shepard’s judgment, in the course of 
his argument at the trial, as to the relative extremes of 

307 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Dr. Temple’s and Dr. Crapsey’s variance from tradi- 
tional orthodoxy. From a different angle, an estimate 
of his theological attitude is supplied by the comment 
of an anonymous writer in the “New York Sun,” who, 
in reviewing the metropolitan pulpit, gives his views 
concerning Dr. Huntington as a preacher: 


He is one of the few clergymen who really create sentiment, 
sane sentiment. It is not by his personality, much less by any 
magnetism, that he does this. He avoids extravagance. He 
hates the spectacular to such a degree that he shuns even ges- 
tures. He goesinfor sense. His thoughts have been measured, 
weighed and adjusted before he opens his mouth. He never 
said an injudicious or an impulsive thing, I imagine—a pretty 
hard record if true, though he does n’t quarrel with its reward. 
Not being a man of outbursts of expression, neither is he a man 
who gets at his conclusions by intuition. The warmth which 
goes with informalities of speech, and the exaltation which goes 
with the discoveries made by intuition—in these things he is 
poor. On the other hand, he has the imperturbable pleasure of 
being sure that he can’t be wrong; men of logic, men who think 
in formulas, have this compensation of inerrancy as to their 
method. His style, if it lacks pulsations and color, is classic 
in its correctness. If the casual hearer finds it uninteresting, 
it has certain universal qualities—it might belong to Madrid, 
St. Petersburg, Boston, Jerusalem, so devoid is it of the idioms 
of personality, so unmistaking is it in its orderly form. 

Last Sunday Dr. Huntington preached about the “‘resurrec- 
tion body.” I believe in the resurrection of the body, is the 
declaration of the creed, and he accepts the creed totally. He 
believes that every churchman should accept the creed. He 1s 
unable to comprehend a broad churchman’s repetition of the 
creed while giving any of its declarations a fanciful or remote 
interpretation, which makes it meaningless as definite words. 
The body rises again or else it doesn’t. St. Paul says it does, 
therefore Dr. Huntington says it does... . 

308 


HERESIES 


This was logical, after accepting the premise of Paul’s 
authoritativeness, and convincing to such as do not feel im- 
pelled to go back again to reconsider the premise. Before the 
mind that does not vex itself twice with the question of the 
starting point, logic can scatter all the difficulties of faith. 
But to those who do not get at religious beliefs in that way, 
the method is exasperating, and is apt to be a discourager to 
faith, just as the contrasting method of Dr. Newton and Dr. 
Slicer would be incomprehensible to the mind that moves in 
formulas, 


His own final judgment in the case appears clearly 
enough in utterances of his which were made after the 
trial itself had become a matter of history. On a cer- 
tain Sunday in Advent in the year 1906, after the trial 
of Dr. Crapsey had come to an end, Dr. Huntington 
preached a sermon at Grace Church on “The Gospel of 
the Infancy.” This sermon was printed, together with 
an appendix which further developed some of the points 
made in the sermon, and was in defense of the authen- 
ticity of the Gospel stories concerning the birth and in- 
fancy of our Lord. It was reprinted in all of the 
Church papers, and it caused great rejoicing on the 
part of conservatives of every school, within and with- 
out the Church, and brought to Dr. Huntington a great 
avalanche of congratulatory letters. Some of these 
letters, and the expressions contained in them, doubtless 
made him sad and pensive. Laymen, for instance, who 
were called eminent and influential, found a comfort 
for their convictions that “men go to church to get a 
new inspiration to life and not to hear speculations” 
and “that there is a place where intellectual research 

309 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


ceases and faith begins”; and there were other expres- 
sions of that “compartmental mind,” which was so far 
from being approved by Dr. Huntington. One High- 
churchman, with whom he had had a passage at arms, 
writes in regard to the sermon, with a sinister hint of 
motive: “It will do great good, and give rest and com- 
fort far and wide. The childhood of our dear Lord 1s 
indeed all safe, and so also is your life-work for the union 
of Christendom.” Extreme Ritualists who had years 
before, as the preacher doubtless remembered, expressed 
themselves as believing that the burning of the first All 
Saints’ Church in Worcester had been a judgment of 
God on the heresies of its rector in regard to the 
future life, now hastened to bring him their praises; 
and pulpits which had never been open to him before 
were freely offered to him that he might preach there. 
The rector of one of the most prominent of the Ritualis- 
tic churches of the East wrote him: “Nothing could 
be better put. Nothing sweeter or firmer in manner. 
No one could have spoken with more weight of per- 
sonality. I am writing to ask the ‘Living Church’ to 
reprint it. Can you not mark a special copy for poor 
@ ... He loves and honors you so much that it 
might help him to find his way home. The influence of 
your preaching in our pulpit would be far-reaching in 
this diocese. Would you be willing to open a series of 
four Lent lectures on ‘Objections to Christianity,’ the 
first being on the ‘Objections to a Revelation at all’? 
On the other hand, the Liberals were disappointed. 
Broad-churchmen, among whom were to be found his 
310 





HERESIES 


closest friends, betrayed in their letters their feeling 
that he had failed them. The correspondent to whom 
he wrote perhaps most constantly and freely was left 
cold by his sermon, a copy of which was sent. The 
letter of acknowledgment says in regard to it, “It has 
much to commend it and is a strong argument, but I 
still think the question involved is one for the critics; 
and for my part I cannot see what great difference it 
makes, so long as one believes in the great truth of the 
Incarnation, whether that took place at the baptism or 
before.” Another friend writes: “I am taking the 
liberty of saying that as I see the men you call ‘icono- 
clasts,’ it does not seem to me that the sermon fairly pic- 
tures their mentality or spiritual temper. I cannot be- 
lieve that any large number of them would accept ‘the 
doctrine that miracles do not happen’; but every im- 
fluence that has shaped their minds has led them to look 
for God in the perfection and regularity of law. It is 
not that they won’t accept the doctrine that ‘creeds are 
rock crystal,’ but they cannot, at least without destroy- 
ing the very piers upon which the structure of their 
faith rests, and making the world a topsy-turvy place.” 
Another Broad-churchman wrote: “I recognize that 
the miraculous is to some minds an insuperable diffi- 
culty, and can by no means believe that to remove it 
from the interpretation of the Creed is to be disloyal to 
the Church. I lament the trial of Dr. Crapsey, and the 
- sanction of your great name to the decision of the Court 
of Review. I seem to find myself in a Church narrower 
than that into which I was born. For me, the essence 
311 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


of Christianity lies neither in the manger nor the tomb, 
nor in the great cloud. How Christ was born; what the 
conception by the Holy Ghost means; how Christ rose 
from the dead and disappeared into the cloud; are to 
me things trivial compared with the great reality that 
Christ liveth for evermore, that God is visible in Him, 
that His Spirit more and more rules and pervades the 
hearts and minds of men, and that it is the Spirit of 
Truth. I sigh for peace as you do, but I want the 
peace that reconciles, not silences, discords. That 
abides in love and life, not in formulas, however 
venerable. I find it among men of good-will, not those 
of accurate opinion. Whatever other bodies of be- 
lievers may need, the Protestant Episcopal Church 
needs less law and more liberty. If we cannot bear 
with one another’s burdens, when the burden is only the 
feather’s weight of an erroneous interpretation of a 
clause in a time-worn document, Heaven help us! for 
we have no longer strength enough to help ourselves. 
I do not explode often. Forgive me that I have 
broken out now.” 

Such expressions as the foregoing show his sympa- 
thetic relationship with men of all schools of thought. 
It was an understanding sympathy, which grew with 
the years, and rested upon his candor and fair-minded- 
ness. 

Account ought doubtless to be taken, also, of the 
subtle, one may say subconscious, processes of Dr. 
Huntington’s being, based upon his life passion in the 
cause of Church unity. It was not a case of the be- 

312 


HERESIES 


trayal of conviction to expediency. Dr. Huntington 
was nothing if not transparently honest, with himself 
and with others. Nevertheless, he must have intui- 
tively sensed the fact that the cause which he had most 
at heart might be seriously weakened, if not indeed ship- 
wrecked, if there should be found in the Church to 
which he belonged, and whose part in the realization of 
Church unity seemed to him so momentous, any hesi- 
tancy as to what many esteemed the essential founda- 
tions of the Christian religion. The Church might lose 
the power of speaking with a gracious and compelling 
authority in the cause of unity, by some betrayal or even 
seeming betrayal of the Church’s essential faith. 

The case was appealed, but the function of the 
Court of Review as interpreted by that court, and prob- 
ably rightly, was simply to decide as to whether the 
procedure in the diocesan court had been just and regu- 
lar. The Court refused, therefore, any consideration 
of the merits of the case and decided, probably rightly 
again, that the procedure in the diocesan court had 
been regular. There were, however, those who felt 
that there was a certain flavor of unfairness attaching 
to the proceedings, however technically correct they may 
have been. This was probably due to the fact that a 
certain atmosphere of the medieval inquisition, rather 
than of modern-minded judicial procedure, always in- 
evitably attaches to an ecclesiastical trial for heresy. 
This atmosphere was emphasized by the sort of a hole- 
in-a-corner gloom that characterized the old court-house 
in Batavia where the trial took place. 

313 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


In a certain sense, it might have been said that noth- 
ing could be more unsatisfactory than the outcome of 
the trial. Perhaps, however, its very inconclusiveness 
was what really gave ground for the highest satisfaction ; 
and possibly at heart this was what Dr. Huntington 
felt. The trial had served once more to demonstrate 
the futility and unwisdom, at this stage of the world’s 
progress, of a trial for heresy. To the strict-construc- 
tionist, it was a matter of satisfaction that a court, in 
whatever diocese, had condemned the views of a liberal. 
To the liberals, in spite of the technical decision, it was 
felt that the trial would vindicate the legitimacy of 
accepting the results of New Testament criticism, Just 
as the trial of Colenso had resulted in its time, though 
its technical verdict was the verdict guilty, in establish- 
ing for all time the acceptance within the English 
Church of the results of Old Testament criticism. 

Another point which the Crapsey trial helped to make 
clear was the inadvisability of providing within the 
Church, so far as court proceedings are concerned, any 
substitute for the inconclusiveness of the Provincial 
Court of Review. This substitute would of course be 
the formation of a final Court of Appeal. A proposal 
to this end had been made in General Convention in con- 
nection with revision of the Constitution. On this 
point Dr. Huntington was unquestionably sound. He 
saw clearly that a Church, which proposed to build upon 
the Catholic creeds, would stultify itself if it undertook 
to tie itself down to some interpretation of its constitu- 
tional liberties which might emanate from an ecclesias- 

314 


HERESIES 


tical Supreme Court. This might obviously put the 
Church in the perilous position of some day enacting a 
repudiation of the Catholic councils and the Catholic 
creeds. 

In a letter sent to Dr. Huntington in the year 1907 
this dilemma is presented in the following terms: 


The most surprising fact in the discussion so far as to a 
Court of Appeal, as a possible creation of the approaching Gen- 
eral Convention, is the quiet assumption, in many quarters, 
that such a Court would be a desirable acquisition. ‘The 
ground upon which this assumption 1s based is primarily sym- 
pathy with the accused, whoever the accused may be. In other 
words, there is a sense of injustice which comes from the present 
situation. As a consequence of this situation no one can have 
his case settled by a Supreme Court, which shall adequately 
represent the whole church. This feeling is understandable 
and commendable, and yet it is a motive which tends to obscure 
the real issue at stake. he ultimate consideration must be 
the church as a whole. What that real issue is, becomes ap- 
parent when we proceed to the question “who is to constitute 
this court?” 

The answer to this question which has more than once been 
put forth is, the House of Bishops. But can this Church seri- 
ously consider a proposition by which it will make the upper 
house of its legislative body at the same time its Supreme Court? 
Or, since the questions to be decided are to be doctrinal ques- 
tions, can this Church seriously consider a proposition to legis- 
late the House of Bishops of the American Church into a Gen- 
eral Council? 

These questions have but to be asked to make apparent the 
absurdity of the proposition. If there were to be a Court of 
Appeal, it must consist of Bishops, Presbyters, and laymen. 
But a Court of Appeal is in itself inconsistent with that very 
genius of the Anglican Communion upon which our Catholic 
heritage rests, From the dawn of the Reformation in England 


315 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


until to-day, our strength has been that we have not settled 
doctrinal differences. By our genius for comprehensiveness 
we have united irreconcilables, and gloried in the simultaneous 
possession of doctrinal positions radically incompatible. We 
set up centuries ago our final court of appeal. That court 1S 
the developing Christian consciousness of the ages. One of the 
foundation stones upon which we have builded, is the conviction 
that the best way to settle our differences is not to settle them. 


To this Dr. Huntington replied as follows: 


Although my mind is not fully made up on the subject of the 
Supreme Court of Appeal, it is gravitating steadily towards 
the conclusion which you yourself have already reached. I 
should not state my objections to the establishment of such a 
court in just the language that comes natural to you; but I 
am becoming more and more convinced that a choice assortment 
of judicial decisions on doubtful points of theology would prove 
only a “heritage of woe.” If such a court we must have, I 
fully agree with you that it would be most undesirable to make 
it coterminous with the House of Bishops, or even with a select 
judicial committee of the same. Our lines of judicature ought 
to follow our lines of legislature, and allow for an equal rec- 
ognition of bishops, presbyters and laymen. 


316 


LETTERS 


Ara h 


if 


Aber DRI SANS ue a een 
KL BTN || AN GO ‘ hen ' ORY 
V7 t 1% s re | A ; " al ay 


nC & 
acta Laetitia 
(Rey! uh 


Ay 
“iy ‘ 
i J the 

pia her ty 


hay 


Gl 
nt 


i 
gif Aa i 
py: Ar AieA,!) a 
bene) WMAP AT 
SSPE ant i 
tf et he ny yy Wa 
Ve” fats se tid My f 
Weer ya) / 
EMI SAL 





North East Harbor, Me., 
Tuesday, July 24, ’94. 
My Dear Miss Atice: 

Just as I was about laying aside the morning paper to-day, 
supposing that I had read everything in it that could in any 
way concern me, my eye fell upon the announcement of your 
dear mother’s death. Instantly my heart went out to you and 
to the whole family of which she has been so long the centre. 
As a sorrow it touches you all at the tenderest point, but as 
a bereavement it necessarily falls with the heaviest stress upon 
you and your sister to whom the personal care of her, from day 
to day, has been the stated and regular occupation of life. It 
is vain to speak of her long life, vain to dwell upon the fact that 
the full measure,—more than the full measure of “the days of 
our age” had been in her case fulfilled—these thoughts may a 
little alleviate grief, they cannot quench it, they cannot make 
the fact that a dear face has departed into the unseen, that a 
loved voice has lapsed into silence, any the less a fact. No 
matter at what age a mother leaves us, the hard thing to re- 
alize and to bear is that left us she has. I shall not therefore 
weary you with any of the trite phrases of condolence; indeed, 
I do not know but that I ought to ask your pardon for having 
used as many words as I have done already, for grief loves 
silence. And yet it would seem to one unnatural, and you would 
have a right to think it so, if, after having been deprived of 
the satisfaction of being near you at a time when of all times 
you must have wanted your own minister at hand, I should 
refrain from speaking out the sympathy that is in my heart. 
How gladly I should have staid at home, could I have had any 
intimation of what was coming. As it was, I remained in New 
York considerably longer than I have usually done and would 
have remained for any length of time had I foreseen that a 
household so dearly identified with Grace Church as yours, for 

319 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


all these years has been, would need me. May the peace of 
God be with you and upon you all. Think of the tired feet 
that had accomplished so long a journey as resting now, think 
of the gentle spirit as in “joy and felicity,” think of the ever 
unselfish heart as satisfied. Surely it is well with her now. 
“Tt is finished.” 


Tuesday, Nov. 27, 1894. 
Dear Dr. Brices: 

It was most kind of you to remember me in your distribution 
of author’s copies, and I thank you heartily for having done 
so. “The Messiah of the Gospels” is a monument of thorough- 
going scholarship. 

When you shall have completed your trilogy,—and I ear- 
nestly trust that life and health may be granted you for the 
task, you will have a right to feel that you have done a unique 
work, and one worthy of a place beside those great interpreta- 
tions of the person and functions of the Christ, that have done 
so much in our day to keep men steadfast in the faith. 

Believe me, with great respect and regard 

Most truly yours... 


To E. L. Gopxin 


March 138, 1896. 
Dear Mr, Gopkin: 

Last week while meditating my semi-centennial sermon, I was 
struck by the thought that it would be a good thing to intro- 
duce a little local colour. What did contemporary journalists, 
for instance, think and say about so interesting an event as 
the Consecration of Grace Church? Caught by this idea, 1 
sent one of my curates around to the Astor Library, to grub 
among the newspaper files of 1846 and see what could be found. 
Judge of my amusement when he returned bringing the enclosed 
excerpt as the only result of his search. After having perused 
it you will realize the emotions that took possession of me when 
in one of the highest and best seats of the synagogue I discerned 
the present-day editor of the Evening Post. Verily, I said to 

320 


HERESIES 


myself, the whirligig of time does bring about its revenges; 
there is such a thing as poetic justice; Mr. Bryant and Grace 
Church are at quits. 

Faithfully yours. 


IncLOsuRE IN ABOVE 


N.Y Evening Post, Mon., March 9th, 1846. 

The fine Gothic Structure at the head of Broadway was Con- 
secrated to religious purposes on Saturday [Mar. 7]. But 
of the proceedings of the occasion we shall have nothing to say. 
We received from the proper authorities in the course of last 
week several tickets and a card of invitation to attend the 
Services. These we gave to a lady of our acquaintance who 
had some desire to attend the Ceremonies, and who went there 
about half past nine o’clock to secure a seat. She had scarcely 
taken a seat, however, when she was accosted by another lady 
who said the seat belonged to her, and she meant that nobody 
but her own friends should sit in it. Our friend immediately 
removed to another pew, but in a little while she was very 
rudely addressed by a man who said that the pew was his and 
he wanted it for his own use. She would perhaps have made a 
third attempt to get a seat had she not seen other persons hur- 
ried out of the pews in the same rude and selfish manner. But 
finding the entire church appropriated on this public occasion, 
her self-respect induced her to leave the building. After such 
disgraceful proceedings on an occasion to which the public were 
specially invited, a collection was very properly taken up for 
the establishment of a free church. 


Mr. Godkin replied: ‘There was a good deal of the 
journalist about Bryant in spite of his poetry.” 


To Miss SATTERLEE 


Eve of the Feast of the Annunciation, 1896. 
My Dear Constance: 
Some years ago, when we were carrying the Standard Prayer 
Book through the press, some extra leaves of the “bordered 


321 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


edition” fell into my hands, and from among them I have made 
out a copy of the Ordinal,—that portion of the book which is 
to have such a peculiar interest for you to-morrow. Pray 
accept it, if you will be so kind, as a souvenir of the memorable 
day which is to mark a turning-point in your family life, as 
well as an epoch in the larger life of the Church, and let it be 
also a reminder that among the friends you leave in New York 
there is not one upon whom you may more confidently count, 
as sure to miss you and to remember you than 
Yours faithfully. 


Dec. 17, 1897. 
Dear Bisuor Hay: 

An illness, serious enough to keep me in bed for the better 
(or worse) part of a fortnight, is my excuse for not having 
earlier acknowledged the receipt of your Sermon on the Bible. 
Your presentation of this subject will be a great help to intelli- 
gent people. The unintelligent will doubtless stumble at some 
of your positions. I have always remembered a saying of Dr. 
Arnold in one of his letters to Justice Coleridge, anent the 
“Confessions of an Enquiring Spirit,” which had then just ap- 
peared. “Have you seen,” he says, “your Uncle’s ‘Letters on 
Inspiration’? They are well fitted to break ground in the ap- 
proaches to that momentous question which involves in it so 
great a shock to existing notions. . . . Yet it must come, and 
will end, in spite of the fears and clamors of the weak and 
bigoted, in the higher exalting and more sure establishing of 
Christian truths.” 

Your Sermon is a help in the “breaking-ground” process 
which Arnold describes, and in the midst of which we now find | 
ourselves. Your suggestion of the connection between St. John 
1:17 and the two Sacraments is new to me and very striking. 
As I looked at your text a thought came into my head which 
I worked up into a sermon for the Second Sunday in Advent, 
and which I think may interest you, namely, that “the lantern 
unto my feet” stands for the ethics of daily life, and “the light 
unto my path” (singular in A. V. and R. V.) for the hope of 

322 


HERESIES 


everlasting life, a distant beacon towards which the soul moves 
in her journey. This interpretation relieves the text or book 
of being pleonastic, and gives it an application both to this 
life which now is and that which is to come. 


May 11, 1898. 
Dear Miss Merepiru: 

I am glad you liked the Sermon; though, perhaps, you read 
into it more of your own feeling about the war than is really 
there. 

The humanitarian motive does not stand out so clearly to 
my eyes, from among the many motives involved in this affair, as 
I wish it did. 

My feeling rather is, “We are evidently in for it, and whether 
we believe, or do not believe, that war might have been and 
ought to have been staved off, we must insist upon the best 
interpretation of our position that is possible, and construct 
a schedule of duties consistent with the situation.” This will 
not satisfy your convinced mind, but it is as far as I can hon- 
estly go. The notion of settling difficulties between Christian 
peoples, or between any peoples, by the throwing about of 
great lumps of iron is essentially abhorrent to my sense of 
the fitness of things... . 


May 14, 1898. 
Dear McKim: 

Thank you for sending me your sermon. It is the best set- 
ting forth of an optimistic view of the war that I have seen. 
My own reflections contained in a sermon preached on the Sun- 
day after the war broke out, a copy of which I have sent you, 
will seem very tame in the comparison. I cannot see the human- 
itarian aspect of the affair as clearly as you do. That the 
philanthropic motive has been with our people the chief motive 
I have persuaded myself to believe, but so many other sec- 
ondary motives have also come in, that the primary one is to 
my eyes sadly obscured. 

323 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


N. E. Harbor, 
July 8, 1898. 
Dear ANNE: 

Congratulations from such friends as you and Howard mean 
more to me than the degree itself for which I did not, I fear, 
care as much as a dutiful child of the College should have done. 
‘“Honors,” so-called, have rather a hollow look when one gets 
to my time of life, especially honors in Divinity. I suspect 
that if honors in Divinity, in the true sense of that word, were 
to be distributed with unerring judgment, they would fall quite 
as thickly without the ranks of the clergy as within,—in some 
cases even “man-servants and maid-servants” might get them. 


N. E. Harbor, July 9, 1898. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

I was in such haste at the time when I answered your last 
letter but one that I wholly forgot to reply to your question 
about Vestries & Congregations. I have a very strong feeling 
that the Congregation, the “flock” presided over by one pastor, 
is the true unit in the case of the local Church, and that the 
Vestry ought to be regarded as merely a temporary Committee 
with delegated powers. 

When in N. England, where this idea is indigenous, because of 
the Puritan traditions, I have always tried to emphasise the 
parish meeting, and with considerable success. In New York 
I have found the other tradition, that which makes of the 
Wardens & Vestry a sort of self-perpetuating close corpora- 
tion, has been too strong to be resisted and I have made no at- 
tempt to alter the prevailing usage. ‘The history of vestries 
& parishes is very similar to that of directors and shareholders 
in ordinary secular corporations,—namely a continual merg- 
ing of the functions of the larger body into those of the smaller 
one, much the same process that on a larger field of action 
brought about the centralization of all ecclesiastical power in 
the hands of the Pope and his Cardinals. 

I read Mr. S ’s Sermon with much interest and with a 
strong desire to agree with its teachings. I confess however 


324 





HERESIES 


that the strain put upon my optimism was considerable. Time 
will show, and probably pretty soon, whether the motives of 
our people in this war are really as pure and as unselfish as you 
and Mr. § think. I most earnestly hope that they will 
be proved to have been so. Mr. 5 speaks as if the whole 
country, in its estimates and ideals, answered perfectly to the 
Puritan conception of a nation fearing God and working 
righteousness, a Commonwealth of Saints. 

Perhaps it is the baneful result of fourteen years of residence 
in lower Broadway that I should be found questioning the fact. 








July 20, 1898. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

My feeling about the war is this, that it is premature to 
judge of its ethical character until the terms of peace are made 
known. I should be proud indeed to see the United States 
utter itself in some such way as this,—“We went into this war 
for a definite, announced purpose. That purpose has been ac- 
complished. We do not covet an inch of Spain’s land or a 
dollar of her money. We have expelled her from Cuba as we 
undertook to do. That is enough.” Were the country, when 
hostilities cease, to take this ground, not only would it be proof 
positive that the war was really undertaken from an unselfish 
motive, but it would, in my judgment, give us more prestige 
and more influence with the other nations of the world, than if 
we were to add a score of coaling stations to our island pos- 
sessions and three-score battleships to our fleet. 

This war is surely one or other of two things,—either it is 
a war of conquest or a war of liberation. If it is the former it 
is iniquitous, for assuredly no European country has a better 
legal title to any one of its dependencies than Spain has to 
Cuba; if it is the latter, then it behooves us to prove our sin- 
cerity by coming out of it (as we can well afford to do) poorer 
in this world’s goods than when we went into it. Verse is, with 
me, a more adequate vehicle than prose, in cases where my 
feelings are deeply interested, and you will find in the Sonnet 
which I enclose, an attempt to express tersely my conviction. 


325 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 
“Put up thy Sword into his Sheath.” 


With folded arms, my Country, speak thy will. 
Clean be those hands of thine from smirch of trade. 
Let the sheathed sword hang idle. They persuade 
The baser course, who, not content to kill, 
Would carve out cantles of the spoil, and fill 
The sacred edge of that victorious blade 
With stain of plunder. Never was there made 
The sword that could be knife and weapon still. 


Thou sawest God’s angel at the anvil stand 
And forge the steel. He smote it blow on blow. 
Wrathful he seemed, yet ever from above 
He stooped, the while, and swiftly dipt the brand 
In tears, yea, tears; that he might make thee know 
How vain were vengeance unannealed by love. 
W. R. H. 
July 17, 1898. 


Dec. 1, 1898. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. . . By the way, I forgot to notice your pater familias argu- 
ment in my response to your letter of protest. It (the 
P. F, argument) brought before my mind the picture of a man 
who goes into a neighbor’s house to stop some domestic row, 
the flogging of a child or some such outrage, and who proceeds, 
after having redressed the particular grievance in hand, by 
knocking the parents senseless, to help himself to the family 
silver,—the “‘opportunity” being so wonderful, and almost, one 
might say, providential that it ought not to be neglected. 


January 14, 1899. 
Dear Dr. Brices: 
I am proud indeed to be the recipient of this magnificent 
volume, from which I hope in time to come to gather much 
wisdom. 


326 


HERESIES 


From other and more competent critics you will receive what 
it has become the fashion to call “appreciations” that will 
really mean something (for I am no scholar in your sense of 
the word), but no one among your friends will, I am very sure, 
feel a profounder respect than I do for the massive learning 
which the book enshrines, and for the sterling manhood in which 
the learning has its roots. 

I shall not be quite satisfied until I have your autograph in 
this author’s copy. 


March 17, 1899. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

Thank you for the copy of President Low’s Address. I find 
nothing new in it except the jest about the French & the In- 
dians, and even this is seen to prove nothing the moment it is 
critically examined. No, this whole business of which Cecil 
Rhodes is high-priest, and Rudyard Kipling poet-laureate, fills 
me with,—I was going to say disgust, but remembering how 
strongly you feel on the other side, I refrain and will say in- 
stead, disquietude. 

I long ago gave up President Low as a man of insight,—a 
good phraser of truths that have become obvious, yes, but not 
in any sense a leader of men. Of all the Republicans & Mug- 
wumps now-a-days Tom Reed is to my thinking the best. 


October 12, 1899. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

One reason, I dare say, why the clergy are slack about the 
prayer is that “we know not what to pray for as we ought.” 
Is it a “rebellion” or is it a war? And if a war, whose war? 
The President’s or the Nation’s? These are not easy questions. 
I suppose that you and I are destined to quarrel yet again 
over the Transvaal. Here also I fail to see the logic of the 
popular contention. 

Ever since the American Revolution the English have been 
saying that the one great lesson taught them by that event was 
the folly of trying or even wishing to coerce a colony. Oh, no, 


327 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


never again would they think of it. Shades of G. Washington, 
B. Franklin and C. James Fox forbid! But here is a coun- 
try which has not even the status of a colony, but stands re- 
lated to Great Britain only by a vague tie known as suzeraignty 
(that “G” is a mistake), and yet the moment it asks to be per- 
mitted to depart in peace the whole British Empire is up in arms 
in a moment, and Chamberlain & Rosebery are made friends 
together. 

I have always been considered by my friends a sort of Anglo- 
maniac in my tastes and sympathies,—Bp. Brooks directly 
charged me with it; but there are some things about J. Bull 
when he gets into his jingo mood that I cannot away with. 

But enough of wars & politics; let this fresh sheet be devoted 
to pleasanter things. 

Did n’t we make a handsome sweep of it at our Diocesan 
Convention? and is not Brother making the position of 
himself and his friends more and more ridiculous by his daily 
talks with the reporters? He is rapidly becoming a standing 
joke. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that all the 
votes cast for our old Standing Committee indicated just so 
many converts to Dr. Briggs’s opinions. I am inclined to 
think that there are very few to whom all of these are palatable. 
What it meant was that the Convention would not permit the 
Bishop of the Diocese to be stabbed in the back under a show 
of zeal for orthodoxy. Why Bishop Potter has chosen this 
critical time for an outing I don’t quite know. He is a very 
hard worker while he works, and probably has intimations 
which it is not safe to disregard that he must “slow up.” .. . 





Octal a 1807: 
Dear Miss MERreEpITH: 

. . . My course in the Briggs affair has been in part dic- 
tated by personal friendship, for I have known him intimately 
for some years, but mainly by indignation at the attempts 
made by his opponents to stifle scholarly research into the 
origin and compilation of the Scriptures. With many of the 
details of his criticism I am not in agreement, though perhaps 


328 


HERESIES 


I should be if I had his learning. With his main position that 
the Bible is the divinely watched over Chronicle of the motions 
of God’s hand in human history I am in complete accord. .. . 


Dec. 22, 1899. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. . . You ask me about Crapsey’s “Disappointment of Jesus 
Christ.” I liked it so much that I ordered a hundred copies 
and distributed them without delay. Coming from the source 
it does, it is significant of much and may have important results. 
I think however (and have told Crapsey so), that the “Trac- 
tate” gives away too much in the region of dogma; and I am 
curious to learn what he means by a needed “Statement” of 
Christian truth (see his Appendix), when he has practically 
thrown all statement (which is but another name for Creed) 
to the winds. He assures me that in subsequent issues he will 
make this plain... . 


May 26, 1900. 

Many thanks, my dear little man, for this beautiful clock, 
which I trust will help to keep me “up to time” as I grow old. 
It was a very pleasant thing for me to hold you in my arms in 
Church on Ascension Day, for your father and mother are dear 
friends of mine, and I hope that you and your sister Anne are 
meaning to be the same. Sophie, your Godmother, and I have 
have long been friends. Do you know I have written down your 
name along with Papa’s and Mamma’s and Sophie’s in a big 
book called “The Parish Register of Grace Church”? Come 
and see it some day. Good-bye for now. 

Your loving rector. 


Saturday, June 9, 1900. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

Here is the Sermon. I am glad that it interested you. 
While preaching it I had a feeling that it was failing to take 
hold, presumably because of its being lacking in the element of 
personal appeal, which is the life of most sermons. But it 


329 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


seems that there were at least a few to whom the method of the 
discourse was not unacceptable. 
Preaching is strange business, it is ‘‘hit or miss.” .. . 


Aug. 29, 1900. 
Dear Miss MerepitTuH: 

You are quite right so far as the logic of the situation, pure 
and simple, was concerned, but there was an element of cour- 
tesy in the matter which made decision difficult. Had I gone 
over to Bar Harbor at Mr. J ’s invitation I should have 
disregarded Mr. B *s protest as being founded on a strained 
interpretation of the Canon; but I was in the parish by special 
request of the rector, and to go in the face of his interpretation 
of the law, after he had told me that in doing so I should de- 
feat the purpose to further which he had invited me into his 
parish, seemed to me a thing I could not do without discourtesy. 
I felt at the time that the young man was hurting himself 
and the cause he had at heart, and, as delicately as I knew how, 
tried to make him see it so, but since he could not or would not, 
I took the course which seemed to me, on the whole, the right 
one. I may have been mistaken. It would not surprise me to 
see in the columns of the ritualistic press, the Rev. Mr. B 
glorified as the “‘Athanasius of Bar Harbor.” ... 











Oct. 20, 1900. 
Dear Mr. CaTHeEty: 

In the course of my ministry, I have declined more than one 
“call” with less of reluctance and hesitancy than I am feeling 
now in the face of your strongly put appeal. It is a serious 
thing to say “No” to such a request as this of yours. And yet, 
after thinking it all over, I cannot feel than I have any right 
to subtract from the few months that I have my people with 
me, the ten days which your plan would demand. I will not 
dwell upon my own sense of inefficiency for such a task, though 
that 1s very keen. In common with some others, you have 
gathered from what you have seen of me in General Convention 


330 


HERESIES 


an erroneous estimate of my average power as a speaker. Un- 
der the excitement of debate, I am at my best, but in the long 
continued effort of a “Mission” I should grievously disappoint 
you. The only time I ever tried to conduct a “quiet-hour” I 
made a dead failure of it. But let that pass, for to talk in 
this vein betrays either self-consciousness, or distrust of the 
power of the Holy Ghost. The other ground, the one first 
taken, is the real basis of my decision. That your part of the 
country is, from a religious, quite as much as from a civic point 
of view, immensely important, I do not for a moment question. 
All of what you say to that effect is true. But it can hardly 
be maintained that your situation is any more critical than 
ours. God, in his providence, has cast my lot here at the bend 
of Broadway, and I cannot but feel that it is here that He 
wishes me to put forth such little strength as He has given me 
to use in his behalf. Sometimes, under the temporary sway 
of just such considerations as you urge, I have dreamed of 
giving it all up and turning to itinerancy as a calling,—the 
thought has, I confess, a certain fascination for me; but so long 
as I am here where I am, charged with the heavy responsibility 
of this parish and its effective administration, I cannot but 
feel that I should be neglecting a near duty for a far one were I 
to yield to your kind urgency. Please don’t regret having 
taken so much trouble apparently all for nothing. If your 
long letter, which cost you so much effort in the writing, has 
had no other effect than that of warming a brother’s heart, 
the labor would have been well bestowed. I shall be the more 
earnest in my ministry all Winter long because of having had 
these good words from you... . 


To Braptey Martin, JR., Esa. 


Oct. 29, 1900. 
My Dear Braver: 

Thank you for sending me your paper on American Imperial- 
ism in the September number of the Nineteenth Century. 
Though I have the misfortune to be on the other side of the 
question, I have read your argument, as I read everything 


331 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


of yours that falls in my way, with great interest, partly for 
personal and partly for intrinsic reasons. Most of your rea- 
sons strike me as thoroughly sound, granted the premises as 
you understand them. . . . However, were I to make a formal 
reply to your contention, I should begin by waiving all the con- 
stitutional points which you raise, and then proceed to lift the 
whole subject to another, and, as I cannot help thinking it, 
loftier level. In fact, I would make everything hinge on this 
single question, and you will admit that it is a fairly compre- 
hensive one: For what does the American Republic stand? 
Or, in a phrase half philosophical and half theological, what 
is its final cause? The average politician has no doubt in his 
mind as to what the answer to this question should be. He 
thinks the republic exists for the sake of promoting to the full- 
est extent the material well-being of the people who make up 
its citizenship, and of attaining, as a nation, a distinguished 
place among the “great powers,” easily intimidating, upon oc- 
casion, any one of them, and, if necessary, able to defy all of 
them. I will not stop to assess the value of this ideal; but, 
content with stating it, will now state another, namely: The 
American Republic exists for the purpose of evolving a freer, 
happier, more intelligent, more conscientious electorate than 
has ever yet come into being anywhere. Accepting as fair the 
parallel you draw (p. 405) between “nations” and ‘“individ- 
uals,” I should say that, just as the wise man of Marcus Aure- 
lius is indifferent to mere material prosperity, except in so far 
as that is essential to the cnjoyment of leisure for intellectual, 
moral and spiritual pursuits; and just as he is also indifferent 
to the vulgar popularity, which skill and muscle bring to the 
athlete and the gladiator, so a nation holds a far loftier place — 
in the estimation of those whose opinion is worth having, and 
is destined to fill a cleaner page in the final history, if it de- 
votes itself to perfecting its social system, as seen from the 
inside; and, in its attitude towards other powers, is content 
with only so much of a display of force as is necessary for 
purposes of self-defence. Even if it were true, as I believe the 
best economists agree in denying, that “trade follows the flag,” 


332 


HERESIES 


I should still question whether we ought to regard the flag as 
impotent unless always visible from the peak of a first-class 
battle-ship. 

You may reply, “If advanced nations assume this selfish atti- 
tude, and insist that they have nothing to do with ‘abroad,’ 
what is to become of the savage and half-civilized peoples, and 
how are they ever to be brought to what we know as enlighten- 
ment?” My own personal opinion is that “enlightenment” 
comes from a knowledge of the truth, and is not to be had of 
commerce for the asking; but waiving that point, I beg you to 
instance a single case in which an uncivilized people has been 
lifted into self-government under the tutelage of another race. 
I grant you that there are many instances of peoples that have 
been benefited by what other races have done for them; as for 
example, the fellahs of present-day Egypt under the English 
régime; but although England took up Egypt with the pro- 
fessed purpose of liberating it, or, at any rate, of leaving it to 
its own devices after a period of guardian care, any proposal 
to carry out such a purpose to-day would be all but universally 
denounced in England as a “policy of scuttle.” 

Moreover, there is this special reason why the American Re- 
public is disqualified in a peculiar sense for the duty of admin- 
istering distant colonial possessions after the English fashion. 
England, although really a democracy, has maintained the 
forms of absolute monarchy. ‘These forms are in Great Bri- 
tain nothing but a legal fiction; but in other parts of the 
world, e. g. India, they can be put in force without inconsist- 
ency. It is otherwise with us. We threw overboard monar- 
chial forms at the Revolution, and set forth a doctrine of self- 
government, which is only applicable to communities made up 
of self-respecting and fairly well-educated men. It is, I grant, 
absurd, as you Imperialists maintain that it is, to apply the 
doctrines of the Declaration of Independence to savage races, 
held by conquest; but for that very reason, we Americans 
ought, for consistency’s sake, to leave the absolute government 
of dependencies to such monarchies (and there is no lack of 
them) as desire to go into that line of business. Uncle Sam 


333 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


has a sufficiently large farm of his own in which to attempt 
working out his very difficult problem. He is making a poor 
fist of it at present, witness the political condition of our 
great cities; and, until he has succeeded in learning how to 
administer a republic with a decent respect for the principles 
on which free government rests, he had better keep his hands 
off savage populations at the antipodes. 

I am the less embarrassed in stating this view of the matter 
because of the fact that I am a Yankee speaking to a Yankee, 
who, I know, cannot be wholly oblivious to or forgetful of 
the traditional civic standards of New England. Because I 
am convinced that those standards are as precious to-day as 
they were in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, I cleave 
to them, not, I trust, as a “little American,” but as, I would 
rather say, a true American. Pardon this long letter. I 
could easily make it longer; but remembering the old saying 
about sermons,—“Twenty minutes with a leaning to the side 
of mercy,” and, furthermore remembering that I am myself a 
preacher of sermons, and therefore the more likely to be 
tempted to prolixity, I desist. 


To THE Rey. E. W. Donatp, D.D. 


Nov., 1900. 
My Dear Donan: 

There is a penumbra to Christian Science which has a litera- 
ture of its own, and which is particularly influential, as I un- 
derstand, in Boston and its neighborhood. I refer to the books 
written by such authors as Horatio Dresser, Ralph Trine, 
Henry Wood, Mrs. Daniel Merriman (What Shall Make Us 
Whole? and Religio Pictoris). I will send you some of these, 
and I would suggest that you pay special attention to that 
side of the subject, since in my paper I am going to confine 
myself to Mrs. Eddy and all her works. Moreover, Dr. Polk 
and Mr. Purrington may be depended upon to look after the 
medical end of the subject. The opportunity seems to be a 
fine one for clearing the air, and I believe that a great deal of 


334 


HERESIES 


good may be done, if we have grace given us to say the right 
word. 

In addition to Trine’s and Dresser’s books, I enclose a little 
tractate by Mrs. A. D. T. Whitney, which is on our side and 
has lots of good sense in it. 


To THE Rev. W. S. Howarp 


Nov. 1900. 
REVEREND AND Drag Sir: 

In reply to your letter of inquiry of the 15th, I write to say 
that the only organization for men in this parish is the Brother- 
hood of St. Andrew and a Men’s Club for working men. After 
many attempts at organizing men in the course of a somewhat 
prolonged ministry, I have come to the conclusion that more 
is accomplished by trying to influence them individually, and 
through them the other men with whom they are associated in 
the general activities of life. In my judgment, there is a great 
deal more ground for organizing women’s work in the Church 
than for organizing men’s work. The men are already orga- 
nized, so to speak, in their several callings, where they are 
continually brought into contact with other men. They come 
home tired at night, and they do not see why the Church should 
try to persuade them into going to a meeting, when what they 
really want is to enjoy the little glimpse they can have of home 
life under their own roofs. If they can be persuaded to attend 
Church regularly, and give a fair proportion of their earnings 
to the support of religion, it is as much as can fairly be 
expected of the most of them. Of course, what I have said 
does not apply to men of leisure, but in this country these do 
not abound in our Churches. 


To Miss M. 


Dec. 26, 1900. 
...P. S. Isn’t Allen’s life of P. Brooks delightful? 
Only please don’t believe that I ever wrote (Vol. 1, p. 551) | 
“Holy Blessed Mirror.” It was probably “Half Blurred 


Mirror.” 


335 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Dec. 31: 1900. 
Dear FRIEND: 

_. . Mr. Davies’ letter I enclose. It is interesting as show- 
ing that even a typical Broad Churchman finds it impossible 
to follow Brother Crapsey all lengths. 

I certainly cannot, and his last “Tractate” has remained 
undistributed, though I sent out 100 each of all the others. 

The . . . business is as bad as you have feared. And yet 
I find it impossible to believe that his work under me was all 
of it insincerely done. I incline more and more to the belief 
that the devil and his angels are very busy... .« 

There are good angels too. May they lead you as far into 
Century XX as God wills, and brighten life to the end. 


Jan., 1901. 
My Dear D 

Thank you for your outspoken letter. If all who listen to 
or read my sermons would express their dissent from my doc- 
trine with equal frankness, I should probably be a_ better 
preacher, for I should be made more fully acquainted with the 
subjective condition of those whom I am set to teach. All 
sermons are to a certain extent like arrows shot at random, or 
in the dark. For one that hits the mark, there are scores that 
go nowhere in particular. 

Against your personal conviction that what is left of the 
Gospels, after dissecting out the miraculous element, “is still 
enough,” I have nothing to say of a controversial character. 
All I can do is to reassert my own counter conviction that such 
residuum is not enough, is not enough, that is to say, for me. 
Such dissecting process, as I view the matter, leaves as its 
result only a fragmentary system of ethics, for which, indeed, 
it may be claimed that it is the best system extant; but that it 
is not so overwhelmingly and beyond all controversy the best 
as to justify much propagandist zeal for the conversion of 
Mohammedans and Buddhists. It is because I find Christ as- 
serting for Himself spiritual prerogatives which difference Him 
from all other teachers, that He becomes to me supremely at- 


336 





HERESIES 


tractive, or seems to have any right to claim my personal 
allegiance ; but these very prerogatives, if justly asserted, make 
Christ Himself the Miracle of miracles. Therefore, if I start 
out to empty the Gospels of miracle, I must empty them of 
Christ, in so far as respects those characteristics which make 
Him precious to me. 

Your contention that my premises require me to admit the 
possibility of present-day miracles, is entirely sound. There 
is, aS you say, no reason why a hard and fast line should be 
drawn across the page of Church History at the close of the 
Apostolic Age, this side of which no alleged miracle can be 
counted credible. One main object of my sermon was to show 
the weakness of any defense of miracles that should relegate 
them to the far past. I don’t want to put you to the trouble 
of rereading my discourse, but if you should voluntarily put 
yourself to that inconvenience, I think that under my defini- 
tion of miracle, ‘“‘wonders will never cease.” 

. . . You say that the belief in the miraculous cures of the 
Bible has resulted in heartbreaking disappointment to thou- 
sands of good people; but what about the miracle of the Resur- 
rection of Christ from the dead? Has not that been to thou- 
sands of thousands a solace and stay precious beyond every- 
thing else? As to the cures at Lourdes, I believe that many 
of them are genuine, and I believe the same thing with respect 
to many of the cures claimed by Christian Scientists, faith 
healers, etc., holding that all of them are the result of obscure 
psychological processes, the outcome of which will continue to 
be of the nature of “miracle,” until those processes themselves 
are clearly understood, when all miracle in connection with 
them will cease. Only the other day, in an open discussion, I 
heard as much as this conceded to the “Scientists” by one of 
the most eminent of the regular practitioners of medicine in 
New York. 

You will not misunderstand me, for you must know that I 
am every way committed to a strenuous opposition to Chris- 
tian Science as a religious cult. I consider their system, as a 
whole, a grievous and harmful delusion; but there are no wide- 


337 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


spread delusions that have not in them some kernel of truth, 
and the particular kernel of truth which Christian Science, 
viewed from the therapeutic side, contains is, I venture to 
think, this, namely, that certain obscure nervous complaints 


can be helped by processes purely psychological... . 


To tur Rev. E. W. Donatp, D.D. 


Jan., 1901. 
My Dear Donatp: 

... Thave just got hold of Allen’s “Life,” and find it fas- 
cinating reading. How the English clergy will writhe under 
Brooks’s contemptuous comments upon the Church of Eng- 
land “as by law established.” I predict that the critics in 
general will find fault with the book on the score of lengthiness ; 
but for those who knew Brooks anc his friends, as you and I 
did, there is not a word too much. The letters are almost as 
racy as Stevenson’s, if not quite, having the merits, which his 
had not, of an entire absence of an effort after “style.” 


1901. 
My Dear ARCHBISHOP: 

... With this I am sending you a copy of the Sermon 
before the New England Society, to which you refer. It is 
better to have it in its completeness than from newspaper clip- 
pings. What interested me most in the Sermon was the irenic 
feature of it, and I intended that to be its chief motif; but the 
newspapers, with their avid concern for whatever touches the 
social world, fastened on the reference to gambling, and made 
no mention of what I said about the relations of Anglicanism 
to Independency. I do not propose any “movement” or 
“crusade.” The quiet influence of individuals in their several 
social positions is the only thing that can work a reformation ; 
and having spoken my mind freely and emphatically to so 
many as it was in my power to reach, I feel that I have done 
my part, not adequately, indeed, but as well as I could. 

338 


HERESIES 


To tHe Most Rev. Enos Nurrartz, D.D. 


1901. 
My Dear ARrcHBISHOP: 

Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your ad- 
dress to the Diocesan Synod. Portions of it have only a 
local application, but what you say on the subject of ‘“ques- 
tionable methods” and the “chief need” are of permanent and 
universal interest. ... 

I owe you an apology for not having replied to a letter re- 
ceived last year, in which you touched upon the question of 
divorce, and the unwisdom of our establishing in the United 
States, by our synodal action, an artificial standard; which 
apprehension was based, if I remember rightly, upon what you 
had seen reported as to the action of this Diocese in recom- 
mending that the General Convention pass a more stringent 
Canon on the subject of divorce than the existing one. 

There is little doubt, I think, that the present Canon will 
be revised in October, at the meeting of our General Conven- 
tion in San Francisco; but there is equally little doubt, in my 
judgment, that the laity will veto such legislation as, in your 
letter, you deprecated. I dare say that the bishops and 
clergy will take the ground that any and every divorce must be 
disallowed, for whatever cause secured; but I do not think 
that the laity will consent to such doctrinaire legislation. 


1901. 

My Dear Mr. H 
In reply to your request for an opinion, which I feel it an 
honor to have received coming from such a distance, I would 
say that, in my judgment, the prudence or imprudence of a 
young woman’s engaging in dancing depends entirely upon 
local circumstances. I do not conceive that there is any sin 
in dancing as such. It is a noticeable fact that, when the 
prodigal in the parable returns from the far country where 
he has wasted his substance in riotous living, he finds dancing 
going on in his father’s house. From this it would plainly 
appear that our Lord did not intend to condemn a form of 


339 





WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


amusement innocent in itself; but it would be a great mistake 
to quote him in favor of such dancing as goes on in the under- 
ground slums of a great city. ... 


To J. G. Puexurs Stroxss, M. D. 


1901. 

Dear Dr. STOKEs: 

Thank you for sending me your paper on Settlement work. 
I have read it with much interest and entire acquiescence. In 
my judgment, altogether too much stress has been laid of late 
by sociologists on “environment,” and too little on individual 
initiative. Personality, as you have rightly discerned, is the 
key-note that unlocks this, along with many other problems. 
When it comes to the question, how personality is to be built 
up and reinforced, there is, of course, a good deal more to be 
said than you have seen fit to say, having, I suppose, been 
under limitations when writing for a journal of ethics. Prob- 
ably you agrce with me in thinking that something more than 
a philosophy of ethics is essential to the development of per- 
sonality in the fullest sense. In the complete treatment of 
the subject, the theological word “sin” would have to find 
recognition as well as the ethical word “error,” and a stronger 
motive power evoked than any known to ethics pure and simple; 
but I quite understand why this side of the subject was left 
blank. 

The opportunity to say what you have actually said was a 
fine one, and you have used it to great advantage. 


To tHe Rev. Witiiam Wixrinson, D.D. 


1901. 
Dear Mr. WILkInson: 

Thank you for sending me the copy of The Times, contain- 
ing the biographical sketch of Dr. Faudé, and your tribute 
to his character and memory. His career was a fine example 
of what America does for deserving youths. ... 

Dr. Faudé had many of the qualities of a leader of men; 
he saw clearly what he saw; had great tenacity of purpose; 


340 


HERESIES 


and would, I honestly believe, have given his life rather than 
sacrifice principle. It was my misfortune that I could not 
sympathise with him in all the positions, theological and 
ecclesiastical, which he held; but the experience of the Wash- 
ington Convention greatly increased my estimate of his abilities, 
and heightened my respect for him as a man. Death, as you 
justly say, dulls the edge of controversy, and makes just esti- 
mates of our opponents more easy. In the final summing up, 
the sincerity of men’s purposes and the honesty of their 
methods, will be seen to have been of more importance than 
the correctness of their “views.” 


Feb. 26, 1901. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

Thanks, very many, for both of your letters. It is odd 
that the concluding sentence of Mr. Davies’ last page (“By 
all means let us have the Constitution of the American 
Church”) should have fallen under my eye just as I had 
finished a chapter on “Autonomy in America,” to be inserted 
in a composite book which an English Churchman (Mr. Mon- 
tague Barlow) is getting out for the purpose of influencing 
Parliament to consent to a little loosening of the shackles of 
the Church in its relation to the State. The other Chapters 
of the book are by Englishmen, but the one on “Autonomy 
in America” had to be given to an American, and at only four 
days’ notice (for they are in a great hurry). I did what was 
demanded of me. Of course my chapter has no literary merit. 
It is only a bald statement of things as they are here in the 
LB Re 


April, 1901. 

To “OxservER,” AUTHOR OF ARTICLES ON 

“Tip METROPOLITAN PULPIT,” 

Orrice or The New York Sun, New York. 

My Dear Sir: 

Your recent “observings” in connection with Grace Church 
and its administration, have naturally interested me a good 
deal, and I wish to express my appreciation of the keen in- 


341 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


telligence you have shown in grasping the real purposes and 
intention of the administrative methods here in use. Both 
in your description of what goes on, and in your interpreta- 
tion of the inspiring motive, you are entirely correct. 

With respect to the personal side of the article, you will 
permit me to say that, in my judgment, you have done me 
far more than justice on most points, but have misunderstood 
me on others. A wider acquaintance with my teaching 
methods would, I think, persuade you that I am not the slave 
to formulas which you imagine me to be. I have insisted 
strenuously on adherence to the “articles of the Christian faith 
as contained in the Apostles’ Creed,” but not so much because 
they are “articles” as because, taken together, they preserve 
the outline of a personality which would be likely to elude our 
grasp, and fade away into nothingness unless definitely de- 
scribed in words. 

My whole effort in connection with the doctrinal legisla- 
tion of the Episcopal Church has been to reduce required 
dogma to a minimum, while yet insisting upon that minimum. 
What has ailed the Church, it seems to me, has been, not the 
principle of dogma, but the multiplication of dogmas; but my 
theology, if I may be said to have one, is a theology in which 
everything hinges on personality as contrasted with “formulas,” 
for which, as such, I have all of Carlyle’s wholesome detestation. 

If on some rainy Sunday when you are not “observing,” 
you will take the trouble to run your eye over the pamphlet on 
unsystematic theology which I venture to send with this, you 
will, I think, concede that to some extent you have misappre- 
hended my position. 

As to whether I am really an icicle or not, is a point of 
light concern; but on this question of my doctrinal attitude, 
I would really rather not be misunderstood by so level-headed 
a critic as yourself. 


April, 1901. 
My Dear Sir: 
I have read with interest the advance proofs of your forth- 
coming books, which you have been kind enough to send me; 


342 


HERESIES 


and since you invite criticism, I would say that I am more 
disposed to question the value of your analysis than to dis- 
pute the accuracy of it. Attempts to reduce all religions 
to the “least common denominator by striking out all points 
of difference” appear to me to have only a speculative inter- 
est, and for this reason: if any one religion is better than an- 
other (and we can scarcely fail to acknowledge a disparity 
among them), it necessarily follows that the better religion is 
your least common denominator plus something more, and the 
best, the least common denominator plus a good deal more. I 
quite agree with you that the clement most central to religion 
as such is obligation. I have been in the habit of telling the 
people whom I am set to teach that wherever the word “ought” 
comes in, there religion comes in also. Moreover, the most 
approved etymology of the word religion favors this view, 
the derivation from religare (to bind) having more evidence 
in its favor than that from relegere (to pick or choose) ; but 
after having accepted this analysis and definition, I still find 
myself obliged to bring in a personal element, since I can- 
not conceive of obligation existing otherwise than as a relation 
between persons. Its use in connection with natural law ap- 
pears to me metaphorical. Law, in the deepest and truest 
sense, is “the command of a sovereign.” 

Holding these views, I find myself quite content for practi- 
cal purposes with that very ancient definition of religion which 
declares that to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly 
with one’s God,—in other words, righteousness, sympathy and 
reverence,—make the sum and substance of it. Your collec- 
tion of analytical definitions from modern writers is exceed- 
ingly interesting. Were I to venture to frame a formula of 
this sort, I am not at all sure whether, in view of what Con- 
fucianism and Buddhism teach, I should introduce the thought 
of immortality at all. Rather I should be disposed to frame 
my definition something in this way: “Religion is a way 
of thinking, feeling and acting, to which man finds himself 
bound by the suggestions of external nature and interior 
conscience.” 


343 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To THE Rev. WALTER LAIDLAW 


Grace Church Rectory, 
April 10, 1901. 
My Dear Dr. Lawraw: 

You will, I fear, count me both obdurate and incorrigible; 
but even under its new constitution, the Federation as re- 
spects its main aim fails to commend itself to my judg- 
MENU se 

You will be reconciled to my frankness by finding en- 
closed a cheque for one hundred dollars ($100.) which I 
am glad to contribute because of my continued appreciation 
of the value of the Federation’s statistical work. Please re- 
gard this, however, as a donation rather than a subscrip- 
tion. 


May, 1901. 





Dear Miss 

Your letter of the 27th has interested me far more than 
most of the almost countless appeals of a similar character 
that come under my eye. You say you do not know what 
cares and sorrows may come into the life of a minister who 
serves where I do; but I assure you that this is one of our 
cares, that we are continually having appeals of an often 
pathetic and sometimes urgent character presented to us, 
to only a few of which it is possible to send any adequate re- 
sponse. 

The spiritual need of your village seems to you, and doubt- 
less really is serious; but what should you say to missionary 
bishops reporting whole counties in their jurisdictions en- 
tirely devoid of any such ministration of religion as you and 
I deem important? 

I have always, however, taken into account, in considering 
requests for aid, the tone and temper of the communication. 
Personality counts with me for a great deal; even though a 
given field may seem to be comparatively insignificant, if there 
are two or three earnest souls at work in it, I am disposed to 
look for a better return for the investment than in cases where 


344 


HERESIES 


the opportunity is large, but the right spirit on the part of the 
workers is lacking. Your letter has a genuine ring to it which 
disinclines me to say No. Should you decide to go on with 
your rectory plan, count on Grace Church for the last fifty 
dollars for its completion. If you write to any considerable 
number of other clergymen as persuasive a letter as you have 
sent me, I think you will get the money. When the time comes, 
return this letter to me, and I will forward a cheque for the 
amount. 


May 20, 1901. 
My Dear Sir: 

If we preachers could only be assured that the bulk of our 
hearers were listening to us as carefully as you seem to have 
listened yesterday, we should be much encouraged and should, 
undoubtedly, do better work. I have just read your letter, to 
one of my curates who remarked that he could not himself 
have written so good an analysis of the discourse. You are 
quite right in saying that a full discussion of the subject with 
which I attempted to deal would demand an inquiry into the 
whole question raised by Hume; but one cannot traverse the en- 
tire field of theological thought in a single sermon. He must 
take some things for granted for the time being, and one thing 
which I took for granted yesterday was the possibility of what 
is commonly, though carelessly, called miracle. Under cover of 
another envelope, I am sending you with this a printed sermon 
which deals with that larger subject, though, very possibly, 
not in a manner that will be satisfactory to your mind. It 
will at least, however, if you take the trouble to read it, assure 
you that the topic is one I have never sought to dodge in talk- 
ing to my people about the fundamentals of the Faith. With 
me, the two chief reasons for believing in Christianity lie (first ) 
in the fascination which the personality of Christ as portrayed 
in the four Gospels exercises over my mind and heart, and (sec- 
ond) in my observation of the effects which a frank acceptance 
of that religion (miracles and all) has had upon the life of the 
world. The force of this a posteriori argument must, of 


345 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


course, vary with each man’s own estimate of the proportional 
part which Christian dogmas have played in the social progress 
of the last nineteen hundred years. To me, the fraction seems 
so large that I cannot, without repudiating theism itself, refuse 
to believe that this thing is from God. Passing to what you 
say about the mechanical aspect of the Ascension as I presented 
it, and the seemingly histrionic character so imparted to the 
alleged event, I will merely say that I should think as you do, 
were it not that the whole scheme of Revelation appears to me 
to have been based on the philosophy of representation, God 
teaching us lessons of spiritual truth by means of symbols that 
instruct through the senses. This view differs from that of 
the “ideologist” in that it holds the symbols to have been really 
presented to the sense, and not to have been simply conceived 
in the mind, though I am perfectly willing to admit that if the 
same sense impression is given to a number of minds at once, 
through some law of spiritual suggestion only dimly known to 
us, it is much the same thing in effect as if the material object 
were itself presented. I am unable to see anything essentially 
theatrical in this view of the matter, for I hold that Christ was 
exercising the teaching function just as really when He was on 
the Mount of the Transfiguration and on the Mount of the As- 
cension within view of his disciples, as He was when on the 
Mount of the Beatitudes within their hearing; for lessons may 
be taught through the eye just as really as by word of mouth. 
I am glad that the argument from unrealised ideals and unsatis- 
fied desires seems to you an adequate basis for a rational be- 
lief in immortality. For myself, I have never been able to see 
it so. I cannot help thinking that if this were enough, without 
aid from the “Gospel of the Resurrection,” belief in a future 
life would have been more prevalent in the ancient world than — 
it was, for this particular argument was as cogent and as ac- 
cessible in Plato’s day as in ours. Christ as life-giver, as well 
as life-revealer, seems to me to have put the whole subject on 
a new basis; and were I to give up my personal faith in Him, I 
should fall back on such views of the matter as seem to have 
satisfied George Eliot. 


346 


HERESIES 
Again expressing my appreciation of the very respectful 


hearing which you gave what I had to say yesterday, I am, 
Faithfully yours. 


June 6, 1901. 





My Dear Mr. ; 

. . . My correspondence presses me very hard, and now and 
then I get discouraged in my efforts to catch up with it. You 
must not infer, however, that I had neglected the reading of 
your interesting tractate. My thoughts have often recurred 
to it, and I suppose one reason why I have not written sooner 
has been because I did not feel quite ready to give a deliberate 
opinion. 

I note from your own style that you must be one who pre- 
fers frankness to circumlocution, and, therefore, I will say 
plainly that, in my judgment, your argument is onesided. I 
do not think that you overvalue the Gospel of the Kingdom, or 
at all exaggerate the importance of its being taught and 
preached. I do think, however, that you undervalue the place 
which personal religion occupies in God’s plan, and that you 
lay an altogether insufficient stress upon the fact that, without 
the culture of the individual, the quality of the aggregate must 
be poor. The Kingdom is of no good unless the King’s sub- 
jects are what they ought to be; and to have the King’s sub- 
jects what they ought to be, each one of them must be, not only 
instructed in the “things concerning the Kingdom,” but also 
trained in personal loyalty to the King. 

It was the perception of this truth that gave impulse to the 
Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, and later constituted 
the real strength of Puritanism in the Church of England. A 
well balanced system of religious education for the young 
ought, I think, to lay equal stress upon both sides of the great 
truth in question. God is the King of all the earth. He is 
also your King and mine. 

I dare say that in your part of the country individualism 
in religion is so rampant, as to make it incumbent upon the 
preachers of a more excellent way to lay the whole emphasis for 


347 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


the time being on the Kingdom. I also found it so to a great 
extent when I lived in Massachusetts. Where I am now, in a 
great city, I am led to feel the need of the other thing. So it 
goes. 

My own conclusion is that, in a normal community, the prob- 
lem of “the one and the many” is best solved by emphasizing 
equally the many and the one. This criticism may not seem 
to you sound; but as I said above, I have taken it for granted 
that you would prefer honest words to smooth ones. 


To tue Rev. Francis G. Peasopy, D.D. 


May 24, 1901. 
My Dear Dr. PEazopy: 

My delay in replying to your important letter of the 14th 
has been due to a natural reluctance to decide so grave a ques- 
tion as the one you raise without careful thought. You will 
easily understand that I do not covet the bad prominence of 
being the only clergyman who has ever declined the sacred task 
to which you have invited me. The temptation to say what 
you report the other busy “New York ministers” to have said, 
is a very strong one; but after much deliberation I have come 
to the conclusion that it is my plain duty to resist it. 

You have a right, after speaking so very honestly as you 
have done, to a full statement of my reasons. The foremost 
of these is the fact that the duties at the College would fall 
within, and subtract a very considerable amount of time from 
the half of the year which is my only time for doing justice 
to the people committed to my charge. Grace Church is a six 
months Church, by which I mean that my parishioners are only 
with me as a whole from November till May. During this lim- 
ited period, I have to make what impression I can, and into 
it is crowded most of the activity of the year. Even as things 
are, I do not begin to do justice to my pastoral duties, and 
every Spring finds me with large arrears of work neglected. 

Any attempted residence at Cambridge during this period 
would continually be broken in upon by summonses to return 
for pastoral duties which I should have no right to refuse; and 


348 


HERESIES 


I should have the feeling, all the time, that I had left a work, 
undertaken in the most solemn sanctions, for another work 
which, however important in itself, has not the first claim upon 
my time. 

Do not imagine for a moment that I underestimate the im- 
mense importance of the preacher’s duty at Harvard. I re- 
alize this in its length and breadth; but on the other hand, my 
opportunity here is no mean one, and to forsake it for one else- 
where would be, I cannot help thinking, a grave mistake. 

A secondary consideration, which by itself would not deter- 
mine me against the proposition, since to allow it to do so 
would argue a want of faith, is my sense of unfitness for the 
pastoral side of the work at Cambridge. You will acquit me, 
I am sure, of mock modesty in saying this, which is really of 
the nature of a frank confession. An experience of almost 
forty years has n’t left me ignorant of the fact that an inborn 
and constitutional reserve stands much in the way of influenc- 
ing people on short acquaintance. As a rule, people have not 
found me very accessible, and I am inclined to believe that the 
“confessional” at Wadsworth House would have few fre- 
quenters during my incumbency. Even clergymen possessed 
of the readiness in this direction which I lack, have told me that 
they had been disappointed by the smallness of the number 
of those who sought their spiritual counsel and advice, and I 
am convinced that in my case the attendance would be almost 
nil. 

When I was contemplating entering the ministry, I wrote to 
the college friend who knew me best, asking his suggestions as 
to the wisdom of the step. He replied, strongly urging me 
against it, on the ground that I was too reserved ever to succeed 
as a clergyman. 

I went counter to his advice, and am not sorry for having 
done so; but there has never been a time when I have not been 
aware that his remonstrance was a natural one; and leopards 
past sixty do not change their spots. 

For these reasons, my dear Dr. Peabody, though with very 
sincere regret, I feel constrained to decline your very attractive 


349 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


offer. If at any time I can help you out by a single Sermon 
on Sunday night, when for some reason the regular appointee 
has failed you, and a “supply” must be had at short notice, 
pray feel at liberty to call on me, and if it is a possible thing 
I will come; but bind myself to be one of the College preachers, 
with weekday duties, I cannot... . 


To rue Rev. Greorcre D. Boarpman, D.D. 


May 28, 1901. 
My Dear Dr. Boarpman: | 

Many thanks for your Inaugural Lecture, with its clear and 
suggestive analysis of the Golden Rule... . 

The schema of topics which you suggest under the head of 
“Range of the Lectureship” would make an admirable outline 
for a year’s course of parish sermons. More and more we are 
all of us getting to sce that Christianity is a religion of personal 
relations ; and that, while we need enough dogma to serve as bal- 
last for the ship, a good understanding between the crew and 
the captain is the main thing, so far as the success of the voyage 
is concerned. 

I have to thank you also for your volume on “The Church.” 
It recalls vividly the pleasant days we had together while 
Catholic Unity was in the air. The book is full of interesting 
suggestions, and will play its part in that final reconciliation 
of our ecclesiastical differences which I am optimist enough 
to believe is destined to be worked out in America. As the 
Apostles’ Creed is punctuated in the Prayer Book of the Amer- 
ican Episcopal Church, “The Holy Catholic Church” and 
“The Communion of Saints” form one article, not two. How to 
make this double aspect of the one truth intelligible to the 
Christian consciousness, will be a worthy task for the twentieth 
century. ... 


To tHE Rev. Joun W. SuTER 


Sep. 3, 1901. 
My Dear Mr. SvurTer: 
Yours is received this morning, and I am replying in great 
haste, being on the point of leaving the city. I have no ob- 
350 


HERESIES 


jection to your making the change which Mrs. Suter proposes 
in the Prayer, but cannot honestly say that I think the emen- 
dation an improvement. As the Prayer now stands, it is a 
prayer for present comfort, and I suppose all Christians will 
agree that the “country of peace and rest” must from the 
nature of the case be a thing future. Therefore, as it stands, 
it appears to me to cover both present and future; but I repeat, 
however, that I have no slightest objection to your altering the 
‘text if you think best. I am only sorry to differ in judgment 
with one for whose good taste and discernment I have so much 
respect. 

I read your article on Marriage and Divorce in The Church- 
man the other day with the greatest interest and care, and wish 
I had time to comment at length upon it. Briefly I may say 
that in your principle of interpretation of the “Counsels of 
perfection” I entirely agree with you. The only question is 
whether this concrete matter of divorce comes under that head, 
namely, of “‘Counsels of perfection,” and is not rather a prac- 
tical injunction. 


To THe Rev. E. W. Donatp, D.D. 


Oct Sis Lool 
My Dear Donan: 

. . . Stedman did put in “Tellus.” It was one of the two 
sonnets he selected. The other was “Authority.” I was glad 
to have “Tellus” go in, but would rather he had chosen a dif- 
ferent companion piece, since, as they now stand, both are 
astronomical in tenor. However, I was lucky to get in at all, 
since all men have not so indulgent an appreciation of my at- 
tempts in metre as you have. It warms me up to have you 
speak so well of “Tellus,” which I confess is a pet child. I don’t 
suppose that one person in twenty, however (if twenty have 
read it), has understood what I was driving at... . 


October 28th, 1901. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 
I found your kind note awaiting me on my arrival from San 
Francisco. .. . 


351 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


I am not as low in my mind over the state of the Unity 
movement as the outside public imagines me to be. My own 
part in it will, to be sure, dwindle; but that is only what was 
to be expected. You may possibly recall the parable of the 
coral insect which I remember using in this connection in a 
letter to you many years ago. I still hold that view of the 
matter. If the animus of the movement which I have led takes 
possession of the Church fifty or seventy-five years from now, 
that result will have been well worth waiting for. In this 
year’s House of Deputies, there was an immense amount of 
raw material. That is to say, members present for the first 
time. It is a wonder that they became educated as rapidly as 
they did... . 


November 25th, 1901. 

My Dear Mr. TayLer: 

Your kind letter of the nineteenth came to my hands just as 
I was on the point of writing you to express the gratification 
with which I had read your contribution to last week’s Church- 
man. “The Warning” is as timely and vigorous as it is 
“friendly.” I trust that the perusal of it may bring some of 
our light-headed brethren to a better mind,—though I doubt it. 
You and I have come to our convictions by different paths ; but 
we seem to have reached common ground. T hough born and 
bred in the Episcopal Church, I was so placed in childhood 
and youth as to see a side of it which repelled me, namely, its 
lack of sympathy with the great wealth of faith and zeal stored 
up in reservoirs beyond its own borders. You saw, at a cor- 
responding period of your life, the glories of the Tractarian 
movement as these illustrated themselves in the life of an ac- 
knowledged National Church. I saw, on the other hand, the 
weaknesses and blindnesses of the men who were trying to force 
a little system upon a large people. Four-fifths of the intel- 
ligence, the generosity and the spiritual life around me, I found 
‘dentified with other forms of Christianity, and to take up with 
a system which turned the cold shoulder upon all this, and 
seemed to try to avoid all consciousness of its existence, struck 


352 


HERESIES 


me as a sort of treason to Christ. Gradually, as time went 
on, I had eyes given me to see the value of the truths encysted 
in the Oxford Movement, and thereupon found my way, as I 
could not otherwise have found it, into the Ministry. In the 
little parish where I began my work, I found myself again sur- 
rounded by an environment similar to that which I have above 
described, and there I worked out, partly for the sake of help- 
ing my people, and partly with a view to clearing my own mind, 
the principles embodied in what I named the “Quadrilateral.” 
I am moved to tell you all this by the frankness of your own 
autobiographical data in “The Warning.” It is pleasant to me 
to reflect that, while some of us are working at this thing from 
the Atlantic coast, you and a few others are working at it from 
the Pacific. Perhaps, by and by, just as the excavators of the 
San Gothard tunnel finally reached a point, midway between 
France and Italy, where they could hear each other’s spades 
and picks striking against the thin wall of stone which sepa- 
rated them, we Easterners and you Westerners may yet hear 
each other’s voices and find our task accomplished. .. . 


Jan. 11, 1902. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. . . I shall only arrive in season for the evening’s duty, a 
duty which I dread as I do scarcely anything else. Cursed 
be the man who invented after-dinner speaking. A sermon or 
a debate I am almost always ready to attempt; but an after- 
dinner speech haunts one both in the prospect and the retro- 
spect. ... 


April 23rd, 1902. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. . . I wish you could have been present (invisibly, for ladies 
were not invited) at a luncheon party which I attended day 
before yesterday. It was the regular meeting of a club of as- 
sistant ministers of various denominations. ‘There were 
twenty young men present, all of them alert, bright looking 
fellows, and ranging theologically from Anglicanism to Chris- 

353 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


tian Science, of which last cult there was one representative. - 
They have a usage of asking somebody in to speak to them 
once a month during the season, and the subject upon which 
they invited me to discourse was Church Unity. I talked to 
them, with intervals of “talking back,” for nearly an hour, and 
enjoyed the occasion immensely, though I had dreaded it in 
advance, fearing that I should tread upon corns innumerable. 
I told the young fellows that if I could be guaranteed an audi- 
ence of that sort in every city of the Union, I would resign 
my rectorship and give the rest of my life to missionary jour- 
neys. Whether they believed me or not, I do not know; but 
they were very cordial and responsive all through the luncheon. 
Tell me something about the Rev. I wrote to him rather 
at a venture; but it is naturally gratifying to an elderly 
person to see young men taking up vigorously and with enthusi- 
asm the ideas to the propagation of which he has given his 
life. Perhaps I overestimate ’s ability because of this fact 
of agreement of opinion; but I should like to know something 
more about him. 








To tur Hon. CHartes Francis ADAMS 


June 7th, 1902. 
My Dear Sir: 

While I am in absolute accord with you and your associates, 
not only with respect to your general view of a “Colonial 
Policy” but also in regard to the recommendations of the 
Memorial, I feel that I am not sufficiently acquainted with the 
details of the Philippine question to warrant me in putting my 
name to a petition containing so many statements of fact. In 
my place as a preacher, I use every opportunity which seems 
to me proper to dissuade our people from letting themselves 
become entangled in any more race problems than we already 
have on hand; but as one of a small number of signatories to 
such a Memorial as yours, I should consider that I was laying 
myself open to a Congressional enquiry “Who are you?” I 
am very sure that, even in the short time at your disposal, you 
can find someone who has a better right than I to appear as a 


354 


HERESIES 


publicist, and who is, at the same time, in equally hearty accord 
with you in aim and purpose... . 


July 1, 1902. 
Dear Miss FELLOWEs: 

Like yourself I was brought up with strict views as to the 
right keeping of Sunday. Only such reading as was known as 
“Sunday reading” was permitted, and no games of any sort. 
Even Biblical enigmas and puzzles were regarded doubtfully. 
I confess that I think this extreme far more desirable than its 
opposite. I call it an “extreme” because the Fourth Command- 
ment, when carefully examined, is found to prohibit only work, 
and such recreation as does not involve work has therefore 
something to be said in its behalf and defence. It must be re- 
membered, however, that to be “in the Spirit on the Lord’s 
Day” is one of the duties of a Christian, and whether this 1s 
compatible with giving up the day largely to amusement is 
to my mind extremely doubtful. The whole question of what is 
and what is not right and proper in connection with Sunday 
observance is exceedingly difficult, and every one ought to try 
his best to be fully persuaded in his own mind. As a step in 
this process you have a right to know your minister’s mind on 
the practical side of the question, and I therefore say, that I 
neither play nor should allow others to play games in my own 
house on Sunday. 


Aug. 5, 1902. 
Dear Miss MERrepDITH: 

. As to printing sermons, it is well enough in the case 
of the really great preachers who can command a large con- 
stituency of readers, but for me, with my rather beggarly fol- 
lowing of disciples, it is much wiser, if I wish to promote the 
greatest good of the greatest number, to preach a sermon to as 
many different congregations as I can Noel committing it to 
the cold oblivion of print. 

Besides, I am no scholar, in the real sense of the word, and 
for me to send out a solitary utterance upon Biblical Criticism 


355 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


would look as though I thought my opinions of great value, 
whereas I am free to confess that I utter myself simply from 
the dictates of common sense, and confront the critics with 
whom I disagree only in the spirit in which a cat may look at a 
King. One of these days when my Sermon “Analysis is not 
All” shall have been “preached out,” I may bundle it up with 
some other discourses and make a “tractate,” but at present 
I feel confident that to do so would be unwise. 

The “preached word” is much more potent than the printed 
word. 

In this connection, however, I may say that I have just now 
a “tractate” in the press which will be issued by Whittaker in 
the fall, under the title “Why Nine Divinity Schools in Tokyo? 
and Other Papers.” You shall have a copy. 


To Cuartes C. Burtincuam, Esa. 


October 3rd, 1902. 
My Dear Sir: 

In view of the congested condition of the public schools of 
the city, to which his Honor the Mayor has recently called at- 
tention, the corporation of Grace Church will very gladly, if 
you so desire, place at the disposal of your Board, for the cur- 
rent school-year, such school-rooms in its parish house on 
East Thirteenth Street as may be deemed adapted, or adapt- 
able, to the existing need. We could, in all probability, ac- 
commodate between three and four hundred children. This is, 
to be sure, a very small number as compared with the multitude 
now deprived of school privileges; but you will, perhaps, think 
such accommodation as we offer better than nothing. 

The Church receives very valuable privileges and enjoys im- 
portant exemptions at the hands of the civic authorities, and 
it therefore seems only fair that when need arises, as in the 
present instance, there should be at least an offer of reciproc- 
ity. The parish house will be open at any time to the inspec- 
tion of such official representative as you may see fit to send; 
and I have given the Vicar, the Rev. George H. Bottome, full 
authority to act in the premises. The building is situated at 

356 


HERESIES 


415 East Thirteenth Street, between First Avenue and Ave- 
nue A. 


February 7th, 1903. 
My Dear BisHor Doane: 

I do not know that I have ever before asked your aid in any 
matter political, but there is an act pending in the Assembly at 
Albany which I should greatly regret to see passed or, if 
passed, signed by the Governor. I refer to a measure intro- 
duced by one of the representatives from New York, authoris- 
ing our City government to pay salaries to the Chaplains of 
the Fire Department. I feel authorised to express myself on 
this subject for the reason that the suggestion of Fire Depart- 
ment Chaplains came from this parish, and one of the two chap- 
lains has always been a member of the Grace Church Staff and 
his compensation has been cheerfully paid by the Grace Church 
authorities. In my judgment, the making of this office sti- 
pendiary would be not only to destroy the charm and beauty 
of service freely rendered by the Church to the State, but 
would also, in the end, destroy the value of the chaplaincy as 
an institution, by throwing it into “politics,” and thereby invit- 
ing a scramble for it on the part of unemployed and possibly 
incompetent clergymen. The system as worked hitherto has 
been most beneficent and has secured the good-will of both offi- 
cers and men. I hate to see the first nail driven in its coffin. 

Regretting to cause you trouble, but feeling sure that you 
will see the importance of checking the movement in question 
if possible, I remain, 


Faithfully yours. 


To tHe Rev. I. W. Bearp 


Grace Church Rectory, 
February 11th, 1903. 
My Dear Frienp: 
. . . L wish I could have spoken last, instead of first, at that 
banquet the other night, for I should have enjoyed pointing 
out the utterly untenable character of some of the positions 


357 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


taken up by the speakers. As it was, I felt all at sea, and not 
having had even a moment’s warning that I was expected to 
speak, floundered about in what I fear must have seemed an 
almost incoherent manner. I suppose the failure to give me 
notice that I was to be called upon should be charged to the 
inexperience of the very attractive but somewhat youthful 
brother who presided. Except in debate (when the excitement 
carries one along), I am not good at thinking on my legs, and 
if I live to be a hundred, I do not believe that I shall ever be- 
come an adept at off-hand speaking, strictly so called. 


Feb. 11, 1903. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

_.. The other night I attended a meeting of the alumni of 
the Cambridge Theological School resident in this city. The 
guests were Dean Hodges, Prof. Nash, Dr. Rainsford and my- 
self. The theology talked was a little too “Broad” even for 
me, and I can stand a good deal in that direction. When it 
came my turn to speak, I told the story of the old lady in 
England who remarked that there were two sorts of Broad, the 
Broad with unction and the Broad without unction, and I ven- 
tured to express the hope that the School would make a point 
of graduating the Broad with unction. .. . 


To tHe Rev. Cuarztes C. Tirrany, D.D. 


March 1903. 

_ . . Meanwhile and in face of all this, I am doing my best, 
as Chairman of the Building Committee of the Cathedral, to 
make bricks without straw. It is a thankless task. Here, for 
instance, are eight great pillars to be set on end in this year — 
of grace 1903. We sce our way to four of them, but about 
the other four we are in doubt. They are to cost only twenty 
thousand dollars apiece. Would n’t you like to take one, or 
possibly two, just to case my mind? 

But to pass from Cathedrals to Parish Churches, I want you 
to know how exceedingly satisfactory the alterations at Grace 


358 


HERESIES 


Church have turned out to be. In the general chorus of ap- 
proval, I can scarcely distinguish a dissenting note. ‘To crown 
all, the acoustic properties of the building (a point upon 
which I was anxious) turn out to have been improved rather 
than injured by the changes. The notice in The Churchman 
was, as you say, a grudging one; but inasmuch as they had 
committed themselves to an adverse judgment in advance, a 
lukewarm verdict upon the completed work was, perhaps, all 
that could be expected. The buildings in the rear of the 
chancel are still unfinished; but we hope to get into them 
within a month. 

We had an interesting meeting at the Church Club the other 
night, to discuss the merits of a request recently made by a 
Polish bishop of Old Catholic consecration, that the Episcopal 
Church would take him and his followers into communion on 
the basis of the Quadrilateral. The Bishop in question was 
present and addressed the meeting through an interpreter. 
He seemed to me a serious-minded man, very much in earnest, 
though some of his remarks encouraged the misgiving that his 
interest in us Episcopalians had a financial side to it. How- 
ever, he claims a clientele of forty or fifty thousand souls, by 
no means a negligible quantity. Speaking in response to a re- 
quest from the Chairman of the meeting, I took the ground 
that consistency demanded our looking favorably upon the 
application, and, while expressing regret that the first serious 
overture should have come to us from the Catholic rather than 
the Protestant side of the house, I urged the importance of 
our living up to our principles. Further I ventured to suggest 
that all we needed to do to effect the sort of junction desired, 
would be to repeal the Canon which forbids the appointment 
of “suffragan bishops.” This done, Bishop Kozlosky might 
be appointed a Suffragan of the Presiding Bishop, and au- 
thorized to minister to congregations using the Polish language 
in all dioceses where the bishop of the diocese was willing to 
accept him as assistant. Whether anything will come of this 
business, I do not know; but you can readily understand why 


359 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


it should interest me deeply, as seeming to be in some sense the 
firstfruits of the Chicago-Lambeth sowing. 

You will be glad to hear that Fisher has almost recovered 
from the effects of his recent fall in Philadelphia. I was his 
guest a week ago Sunday at New Haven, having gone over to 
preach in the College Chapel. He was, as always, most hospit- 
able; and, of course, we talked of you and of the good time you 
are having. He told me a funny story of his old servant 
Katharine, who is a devout Roman Catholic. Some weeks ago, 
Fisher had occasion to send one of his garments to the tailor’s 
to be mended. Soon after, the tailor handed him a small cop- 
per medal which in the mending process had been discovered 
tightly sewed into the garment, presumably by Katharine with 
a view to protecting the late Dean of the Yale Theological 
School from the grippe. Supposing, said Fisher, I had died 
suddenly and this discovery had been made when I was no 
longer able to explain it. I should have been classed as a 
Jesuit in disguise... . 

We miss you awfully at The Club... . 

By way, I suppose, of getting up a rival grievance to offset 
the Fond du Lac scandal, The Living Church has outdone itself 
‘nan attack on Massachusetts Churchmen for having allowed 
dear old Dr. Hale to receive Communion at the recent Brooks 
Anniversary exercises in Trinity Church. Questioned by the 
interviewers as to whether he had not gone unasked, Hale re- 
plied quaintly that he received his invitation nineteen hundred 
years ago. But this, I fancy, is scarcely satisfactory to The 
Living Church. Such events make Church Unity look very 
distant, do they not? One curious feature of the incident 1s 
the fact that the Communion was administered by Bishops 
Codman and Vinton. Nor did it detract at all from the hu- 
mourous aspect of the demonstration, to notice that the same 
number of The Living Church which contained the attack, had 
also in another column a most laudatory notice of Hale’s latest 
book. This, I suppose, was meant to teach us that judicial 
impartiality is the characteristic of Chicago Church jour- 
nalism. .. - 


360 


HERESIES 


To tHe Rev. H. Martyn Hart, D.D. 


March 1, 1903. 
My Dear Dean Harr: 

Thank you for sending me your lively discourse on the Ten 
Commandments. I have read it with great interest and with 
almost concurrence of view. The real reason why I have been 
so crazy about Church Unity all these years, is because of my 
profound conviction that until the Christian portion of the 
community can be persuaded to pull together, we never can 
bring to pass that betterment of the school laws, the marriage 
laws, and the industrial laws, which alone can save us, humanly 
speaking, from going down into the same pit which has swal- 
lowed up previous civilizations. Utterances like this of yours 
help to wake up the public mind to the seriousness of the dis- 
ease. When once that is appreciated, it will be easy to press 
the search for remedies, 


To THE Rev. C. L. Suatrrery 


Grace Church Rectory, New York, 
April 8th, 1903. 
My Dear DEAN SLATTERY: 

I am glad you liked the little service, and wish you could 
have known the holy woman in whose memory it was lovingly 
compiled. The only feature of the office strictly my own was 
the collect on the last page. 

My views as to change of name coincide precisely with those 
which you express. If such an optative title as you desiderate 
were among the possibilities, I would hold up both hands for 
it; but with things as they are, such a title would have to take 
on the proportions of a German compound noun. “Imagina- 
tion’s utmost stretch” fails one in the attempt to construct such 
a marvel of nomenclature. You will say that a man who can 
use so many long words as I have used in this last sentence 
ought to be equal to the task; but I am not. 

Faithfully yours. 
361 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


P. S. I wish there were some way of sweetening the bitter 
waters which seem to be filling our Church’s cup just now, for 
what with the Fond du Lac incident, and the Trinity Church, 
Boston, incident, and the St. Stephen’s Church, Philadelphia, 
incident, we seem to be in a bad way as respects the temper and 
disposition of our hearts. 

W.R. H. 

Collect referred to in above letter, from service at opening of 
new Choir Vestry, Grace Church, which was erected by the 
children of Julia Crawford Clark in her memory: 

O God, by whose holy inspiration thy servant David, once 
a shepherd lad, was moved with his whole heart to sing unto 
thee songs of praise; Grant, we beseech thee, that they who 
in this house shall lift their voices in supplication or thanks- 
giving, may do so with such sincerity of purpose that their 
lives shall be filled full with melody, to the glory of thy great 
Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 


To Francis C. Moors, Esa. 


June 8, 19038. 
My Dear Mr. Moore: 

. . . It does me good to read of your taking a real rest-cure, 
for it was evident to me just before you left that you were 
indeed thoroughly tired out. Frank and I are holding the fort 
all alone by ourselves, Miss Reynolds and Margaret having 
gone to Mount Desert, where my daughter, Mrs. Thompson, 
and her children have joined them. ‘To-morrow I leave town 
for a brief run to Schenectady, where I am to make my appear- 
ance on a university platform as “Honorary Chancellor,” what- 
ever that may mean. So far as I can learn, the Honorary 
Chancellor has no emolument and only one duty, this last being 
that of standing up and delivering an address forty-five minutes 
long. I was sorely put about for a subject, after having ac- 
cepted the task, and for a while was in despair, thinking that 
the only way out of it was for Union College to burn up or I 
myself to depart this life. Finally the name of the College 
suggested an idea, and I have at last succeeded in finishing my 


362 


HERESIES 


thesis, which is embodied in the title, “Idealism the Breath of 
Democracies.” The point I make is that the union of the 
States cannot be depended upon to last indefinitely if it is 
allowed to rest merely on a unity of business interests, but that, 
if the country is to maintain its political integrity, certain 
great spiritual forces must be brought into play. I recognized 
three reservoirs of Idealism, as I call them, History, Poetry, 
and Religion: History furnishing us with ideal persons, Po- 
etry idealizing the land in which we live, and Religion supply- 
ing the ideal motive. I finally bring up with an appeal to 
Church and University to stand shoulder to shoulder in the 
war against darkness. If the thing is printed, I will send you 
a copy, so that you may see for yourself what an inadequate 
abstract this is that I have given you. . 


July 6, 1903. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

Thank you for the “Lamps.” If this were winter and there 
were a fire burning on the hearth, I should have been tempted 
to light them. When I shall have read them, or as much of 
them as I can stand, you shall have an opinion. I suppose 
the next number, if the Holy Father dies meanwhile, will come 
out with a black edge. I differ with you in your opinion that 
the promoters are unnecessary. They are but tugging at an- 
other corner of the great sheet let down from heaven, at the 
opposite corner of which Canon Henson and Mr. Hillis are 
pulling with equal energy; and what am I, who have given my 
whole lifetime since I was twenty-one to the subject of Church 
Unity, that I should find fault with these men who are at the 
two ends of the sheet because I happen to be pulling in a dif- 
ferent direction still? Among us we may get the whole sheet 
straightened out, with all manner of living creatures playing 
happily uponit. My metaphor seems to be a jumble of Peter’s 
vision and Barnum’s circus; but no matter. 

I have just been reading a most delightful book, with which 
I dare say you have had the start of me, namely, “John Richard 
Green’s” Letters, edited by Leslie Stephen. It is an encourage- 


363 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


ment to preachers to find that Green’s splendid energies, which 
were running to waste, received concentration and impulse 
from a sermon by Dean Stanley. If one cannot be a great 
man himself, surely the next best thing is to rouse up greatness 
in other men, as Vinton did in Brooks and Stanley in Green. 

A friend of ours told me the other day that you wrote too 
many letters for your own good, and that you ought not to be 
encouraged in it; so don’t take this as an encouragement. It 
is always a great pleasure to hear from you; but if I thought 
that hearing from you meant a headache, | should wish to 
forego the pleasure. I don’t believe that getting letters ever 
gives headaches, when they are friendly ones. Therefore I 
have no scruples about sending this. 

Faithfully yours. 

P. S.—As a mnemonic help let me remind you that my 
daughter Mary was the last bride to be married in the old 
Church at North East, and Bishop Doane’s granddaughter 
Mary the first to be married in the new Church. What name 
could be more appropriate for such a sanctuary than St. 
Mary’s by the Sea? 

W. R. H. 


To tue Rev. I. W. Bearp 


September 22, 1903. 
My Dear FRIEND: 

None of the congratulatory letters that have come to me 
in connection with my birthday has been more welcome than 
yours, Were I worthy or half-way worthy of such words, I 
should be happy indeed. As to the Co-adjutorship there are 
half a dozen reasons why I could not accept it were the Diocese 
rash enough to offer it to me, but as the one named in the 
Sun, to wit, that I am, by ten years, too old for the place, is of 
itself adequate, I need not mention the others. 

- Pray do not let this information stand in the way of your 
attendance at the Convention. God forbid that I should 
preach to you as to your ecclesiastical duties, but I do strongly 


364 


HERESIES 


hold that it is a bounden duty of every clergyman of our 
Church to exercise his right of voting at its councils. There 
has not been in years, and probably will not be in years, so 
important a Convention as this coming, and you and all whose 
names are on the roll of voters ought to be on hand. More 
than once I have known important ecclesiastical matters set- 
tled by one vote. 


To F. C. Moors, Esa. 


September 29, 1903. 
Dear Mr. Moore: 

Thank you for letting me see this letter. The Bishop was 
entirely off the track in what he said from the chair about your 
motion, having been apparently misled by the phrase “Canons 
of the Church,” which he thought referred to the Diocese, 
whereas you really meant it to refer to the General Convention. 
I think you would be on stronger ground every way if, in place 
of the words “communicant members in good standing,” you 
were to say “baptized persons.” LEcclesiastically every bap- 
tized person is a member of the Christian Church, which is Just 
as much a society as any other society, and therefore it is log- 
ically absurd to allow persons who have not the badge of mem- 
bership to take part in the legislation of the body. 

The reason why I think it wise to stop at the point I have 
indicated is this: that in many communities there are persons 
who order their lives according to Christian standards, and who 
have the respect of their fellow citizens, who yet, for reasons 
known only to themselves, are not communicants; while in the 
same communities there are also many who are communicants 
but who do not have the entire respect of their fellow citizens. 
Now when a Church or Mission passes over the respected man, 
and, simply on the ground of his having been confirmed, puts 
into office another man a little “off colour,” the effect upon 
religion in that town or village is calamitous. 

The Canons of the General Church require that lay deputies 
to the General Convention shall be communicants, and I should 
be not unwilling to see this rule extended to diocesan conven- 


365 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


tions, since they are law-making bodies; but to extend it to 
wardens and vestrymen, whose duties, after all, are mostly 
connected with the temporalities of the Church, would, I am 
inclined to think, be an error. The subject has been often 
mooted in our Diocesan Conventions, and I remember to have 
heard it, too, elaborately discussed in Massachusetts before I 
came here. Whenever it is broached, strong differences of 
opinion are sure to emerge. 


To THE Rev. Cuaupius F. SmitH 


October 5, 1903. 
My Dear Mr. Smiru: 

Of course all these questions as to what form recreation shall 
take in a parish church are questions of more or less, and one 
rector will draw the line at one place and another at another. 
We in Grace Church do not pretend to be any wiser than our 
neighbours ; but we have drawn the line at pool-tables and danc- 
ing, and are content with an ordinary gymnasium, to which a 
bowling-alley would seem to be a very natural attachment, 
though we have n’t one, our extra being a swimming-pool. 
Pool-tables and dancing are under the ban, not because they 
are evil in themselves, but because, in large cities at least, they 
are much handicapped by evil associations. 


To James RusseLtt Parsons, Jr., Esa. 


October 15, 1908. 
Dear Mr. Parsons: 

I believe with you that in the matter of prayer and Bible 
reading in the public schools, the status quo ought to be main- 
tained, and that any departure from it will involve us in hope- 
less controversy. Let me add, however, that I am thoroughly 
committed to the plan for having more rather than less religion 
in our public schools. By “religion” I do not mean dogmatic 
theology, denominational catechisms, or anything of that sort, 
but the straightforward teaching of theistic ethics. . By ‘‘theis- 
tic ethics,” I mean such morality as belongs in common to the 


366 


HERESIES 


Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches and to the Syna- 
gogue. To make my meaning plainer, I may cite by way of 
illustration the answers given in our Church Catechism to the 
two questions, “What is Thy Duty towards God?” and “What 
is Thy Duty towards Thy Neighbour?” In an anonymous re- 
vision of the Prayer Book, ascribed to Benjamin Franklin, the 
entire Catechism is cut down to these limits. Doubtless such 
a shrewd observer saw that there was a code of morals, to which 
none of his fellow countrymen who in any sense were believers 
in God could object. Of course, I am using these compositions 
simply by way of illustration of what I mean by theistic ethics. 
In actual process, the teaching would be by text-book in which 
the laws of conduct were classified and illustrated. There have 
been several such books put forth tentatively. One of them, 
written by the late Dr. Kramer and published by Whittaker, 
is entitled “The Right Road.” 

The present ethical teaching in our public schools seems to 
be lamentably lop-sided. On the single subject of alcoholism, 
the teachers are by law compelled to give instruction; but, so 
far as I know, on no other subject (having a moral bearing) 
whatsoever. You have doubtless noticed the correspondence 
that has been going on in The New York Sun, during the last 
fortnight, on this whole subject. It has struck me as singular 
that nobody has written to The Sun in advocacy of the middle 
ground which I have sketched out in this letter. I started to 
do so myself, but gave it up in view of the perfect avalanche 
of correspondence which the Editor declared Mr. Geer’s ex- 
ploitation of the subject had brought in upon him. 

There is no question now before the public which seems to 
me so urgent as this one. It will not down. Our theoretical 
reliance upon the Church and the family, as the sole means of 
ethical culture, turns out to be a broken reed. Unless I am 
misinformed, juvenile crime is in this country largely on the 
increase, whereas in England, where ethical instruction is made 
part of the curriculum of the board schools, as well as of the 
national schools since the passage of the Foster Bill, juvenile 
crime has as steadily decreased. I may be wrong upon this 


367 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


statistical point. If I am, please correct me, for you must 
know all about it... . 


To tHe Rey. Joun H. Eear, D.D. 


October 16, 1903. 
My Dear Dr. Ecar: 

Thank you for sending me your sermon preached at the 
Consecration of Trinity Church, West Pittston. I have read 
it with pleasure and profit. Yearly I become more and more 
convinced that the Cosmic Christ is the Christ to be preached, 
if we would retain for the New Testament theology the confi- 
dence and respect of scholars, and not only of scholars, but of 
all who think and read. With all that you say in this direc- 
tion, I am in hearty agreement, esteeming your treatment of 
your text singularly dignified and lofty. 

Whether we should agree equally well with respect to the 
other branch of your discourse, namely, that which deals with 
symbolic worship, is another matter. The Mass, as commonly 
understood, seems to me to presuppose a much wider and deeper 
acquaintance with the meanings of the symbols employed, than 
can easily be expected of the average congregation. Last 
spring I attended a Russian Mass, and was impressed by the 
fact that the lay people were quite ignorant of the purport of 
the symbolism. Of course, I may be mistaken, judging as I 
did only from surface signs. Devout, the people certainly ap- 
peared to be, but whether with the devoutness of superstition, 
or devoutness of pure religion and undefiled, I found it hard 
to decide. .... 


To tHE Rev. Georce L. Locker, D.D. 


October 19, 1903. 
Drar GEORGE: 

Your Vestryman presented his note of introduction, and I 
sent him to the Head of one of our parochial guilds, who tells 
me that she can probably give him a chance to lecture this 
winter, | 


368 





WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 
THE RECTOR OF GRACE CHURCH 





HERESIES 


I am awfully sorry to hear of the mishap to your eye, and it 
is largely with a view to saving that organ from further injury 
that I am sending you a typewritten letter in place of a manu- 
script one, for my handwriting grows worse and worse as years 
advance. What old fellows we are all of us getting to be! 
With Tiffany growing deaf, and you growing blind, and I los- 
ing a large fraction of my memory, what will happen I don’t 
know. However, we must keep up our spirits as best we can, 
and I would suggest as one method of keeping up yours, that 
you come on this way and see us. Of course you will be com- 
ing on to Greer’s Consecration, as he counts you one of his 
nearest and dearest; but don’t wait till then, for that is prob- 
ably two or three months off. What with Dowie and Low and 
Jerome, we are having lively times in Manhattan. Immediately 
after morning service yesterday, I was intercepted in Grace 
House by a female Dowieite, and entreated to go and see the 
“Doctor,” who, she assured me, was a much maligned prophet. 
The reporters seem much puzzled by Dowie, some of them tak- 
ing him seriously, or semi-seriously, and the others accounting 
him a full-blown hypocrite and impostor. The probability 
is that he is a self-deceived enthusiast. ... 


To Francis A. Lewis, Ese. 


Nov. 5, 1903. 
My Dear Mr. Lewis: 

It does not at all disturb me that I should be counted among 
the “irascibles” by the Editor of The Church Standard, but by 
you to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, would seriously 
grieve me. As the Standard’s editorial seems to show that 
there is some danger of this, I am writing to explain the course 
I took in our late Diocesan Convention with respect to the 
referendum, 

You may remember that, at North East Harbor last Summer, 
I expressed to you my feeling that, although the course adopted 
by your Committee was the very best possible one for your 
purpose, I nevertheless doubted its constitutionality, and 
should deprecate its being made a precedent. All the same, I 

369 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


intended to keep silent on the subject in the Diocesan Conven- 
tion, and should have done so but for the fact that, at the last 
moment, affairs took such a turn that, had I not moved indefi- 
nite postponement on the ground of the irregularity of the pro- 
ceeding, there is every reason to believe that the Convention 
would have passed a resolution the opposite of what you would 
have wished. 

The portion of the Bishop’s Address bearing upon this sub- 
ject was referred to a Committee. The Committee did not 
bring in its report until late in the session, when the delegates 
had begun to scatter. No one rose to oppose the resolution ap- 
pended to the report, which was a resolution practically favor- 
able to a change of name. Perceiving the critical character 
of the situation, and fearful that unless immediate action were 
had, the resolution would pass, I sailed in with my motion for 
indefinite postponement, defending my motion by the argument 
from unconstitutionality. Had I not done this, I verily believe 
that the great Diocese of New York would have seemed to com- 
mit itself to the policy of a change of name. 

I ought to have written this to you immediately after the 
Convention, and intended to do so, but other things put it out 
of my mind. When I saw the editorial in the Standard, I 
perceived the necessity of making this explanation without 


delay. 


To tHe Rev. C. L. Suatrery 


Grace Church Rectory, 
Nov. 9, 1903. 
My Dear Dean SiatrTery: 

It was good of you to write as you did about my paper. 
You are too modest by half. The next time you see me sur- 
rounded by “older men,” please force yourself through the 
throng, and give me the pleasure of knowing that I have a 
young man’s sympathy. It is with you young men that the 
future of all these matters we discuss so frequently rests. How 
I wish I were going to see what you are destined to make of 
it all! 

370 


HERESIES 


To tHE Rev. Tuomas S. Bacon, D.D. 


November 30, 1903. 
My Dear Dr. Bacon: 

While I quite recognize the distinction you draw between 
your position as an ordained preacher of religious truth and 
that of Captain Mahan, who has only incidentally, as it were, 
undertaken to speak on the subject in hand, I still am of opin- 
ion that the advice given was on the whole wise. I do not 
mean that you should not try to push the circulation of your 
tractate. It is probably going too far to say that you ought 
to leave it on the bookseller’s shelves. 

What I do mean is that there is a limit to what duty demands 
of you in the way of risking your life, and imperilling your 
fortune, in pressing your work upon public attention. 

I have the same feeling about my own pet propaganda, to 
wit, Church Unity, that you have about yours, and I have the 
same feeling that a cold world has hardly done justice to my 
literary efforts. At the same time, I long ago came to the 
conclusion that to try to push, by extraordinary efforts, the 
sale of what I have written would be a mistake. After all, God 
has a care for his elect, his elect books and pamphlets as well 
as his elect people, and may be depended upon to see that 
readers are found if readers are necessary. It is a firm belief 
of mine, though not held as clearly now as I held it in early 
life, that sometimes the purpose of a book or a tract or a poem 
is fulfilled, if the thought or suggestion embedded in it germ- 
inates in some one soul, thus producing results in time to come 
of which we can have no measure. You recall the old saying 
that, if Stephen had not prayed, Paul had not preached; but 
how little Stephen suspected, when he was feeling the impact of 
the stones, that one of those who stood by consenting, was 
destined to become the chief artificer under God of Christendom. 


To Epwin H. Axssort, Esa. 


November 30, 1903. 
My Dear Mr. Asszotr: 
I have read with the deepest interest your niece’s exposition 


371 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


of her father’s thought, worked down into catechetical form. 
The little book is, I take it, a fair conspectus of the main 
points of Frank’s philosophy. The gap between the theolog- 
ical premises and the ethical conclusions can only, as it seems 
to me, be bridged by your true saying that your brother’s 
strength was more largely in the affections than he himself 
would have been willing to admit. I do not, of course, by this 
mean that his logical faculty was not powerful. It was extra- 
ordinarily so. But his heart was so preéminently loving that 
he simply would not accept the results which colder natures, 
starting from the same first principles, found no difficulty in 
reaching. 

With a single exception, possibly with two exceptions, no 
one, I imagine, ever had the opportunity to know better than I 
the depth of Frank’s affections. He had no more intimate 
friend than I in the class of ’59, nor I any more intimate friend 
than he. Our religious impressions deepened simultaneously 
under the influence of the College Chapel of that day, and, so 
long as undergraduate life lasted, there was nothing, or next 
to nothing, of doctrinal cleavage between us. It was inevitable 
that, when we went out into active life, the convictions imbibed 
almost unconsciously in the early days, before we ever knew 
each other, should assert themselves, and so they did. I, who 
had temporarily reacted from historical Christianity, reverted 
to it. He, with whom Theism had always been the main thing, 
rather than any definite tenet or tenets, went off into extreme 
Liberalism. He followed his conscience, I mine, and, while it 
is only truth to say that my dissent from his method has stead- 
ily grown more and more pronounced as my experience has 
widened, there has never been a time when I should not have 
been willing to acknowledge his superiority as a scholar, and 
his greater depth of feeling; for I have never known a man in 
the whole course of my life who seemed to me capable of 
stronger emotion or more genuine passion. 

I have spoken my mind very frankly and freely in this letter, 
moved to do so by your kindness in writing me as you have done, 
and by the upwelling force of old memories, still very dear, 


372 


HERESIES 


To THE Rey. Jonn Fuurton, D.D. 


December 1, 1903. 
My Dear Dr. Furrton: 

I am glad that you take an interest in the suggestion which 
I brought forward at Washington and am also glad of an op- 
portunity of further explaining my view to you. ‘The resolu- 
tions as I offered them were as follows: 

“Resolved, That this council formally requests the General 
Convention, at its next session, to consider the expediency of 
repealing so much of Canon 15, Title I, as prohibits the Con- 
secration of suffragan bishops; 

“Resolved, That the General Convention be further requested 
to consider the expediency of so amending the Missionary 
Canon (Canon 7, Title III) as to empower the Board of Mis- 
sions to maintain out of its funds suffragan bishops for races 
within the limits of the United States not as yet fully Amer- 
icanized, the said suffragans to be titular suffragans of the 
Presiding Bishop, and active suffragans of such bishops as, 
with the advice and consent of their standing committees, shall 
assign them delegated jurisdiction within their dioceses or 
missionary districts.” 

The Bishop of Georgia, at the conclusion of my speech in 
support of these resolutions, immediately rose and asked 
whether I should be willing to omit the words “not as yet fully 
Americanized.” Discerning at once what his thought and 
purpose were, I only too willingly accepted the amendment, 
and the words in question were dropped. I should gladly have 
made the resolution in the first instance cover the case of the 
negro populatien, but was afraid of arousing unfriendly debate 
by such proposal, and therefore limited myself, by the phrase 
“not fully Americanized,” to the Scandinavians, Poles, and oth- 
ers not as yet speaking the English language. The enlarging 
of the scope of the resolutions by the omission which the Bishop 
of Georgia suggested gives the measure much greater dignity 
and importance, and to have had the suggestion of such an 
omission come from a southern bishop was _ particularly 
gratifying. 

373 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


The two features of the plan which strike me as worth spe- 
cial consideration are: 

(1) The giving to the suffragans a titular relation to the 
Presiding Bishop. This keeps them always in office, so to 
speak, and obviates the objection often brought against suf- 
fragans, that, upon the death of the bishops whose suffragans 
they are, they find themselves awkwardly “hung up.” If we 
had, for example, a suffragan bishop for the Swedes, he would 
be at work in such dioceses as were disposed to admit him, and 
if, upon the death of a bishop with whom he had been co- 
operating, he found himself not persona grata to the new 
incumbent, he would simply redouble his activities in the 
dioceses or jurisdictions where he was persona grata. If un- 
der those circumstances it was found that the interest of the 
Church languished in the diocese where the suffragan had been 
discontinued, public opinion would quickly make matters right. 

(2) The throwing of the responsibility of maintenance upon 
the Board of Missions, where it properly belongs in the case of 
bishops who are working in different parts of the country, and 
for an object for which the entire Church, rather than any one 
local portion of it, is responsible, would insure the office against 
being brought into contempt by the mendicant condition of the 
person holding it. There is no more reason why the Board of 
Missions should not be chargeable with suffragans than with 
missionary bishops, whom, in fact, they would closely resemble, 
save in the point of their being employed in different sections 
of the country. 

I am convinced that this scheme is thoroughly workable and 
is in accordance with the spirit, if not the letter, of the ecclesi- 
astical polity of the early Church. I think with you that such. 
suffragans should have a place in the House of Bishops, just 
as the missionary bishops and the coadjutors have, and I think 
there is a special value in retaining the name “suffragan bish- 
ops,” so this would be understood to be a temporary expedient 
adopted under the present “distress,” and not necessarily a 
permanent feature of our American polity. I shall be glad if 
the measure receives your powerful support. 


374 


HERESIES 


Nov. 23: 1908. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. . . When I was a young man I was too proud to face the 
public as a minor poet; but years have brought the philosophic 
mind, and I now feel that if my verses can be of any help or 
comfort to the sort of readers who are fond of verse, as such, 
but to whom the greater bards are, in the main, unintelligible, 
I ought to forget my vanity and I have done so. 

Do not charge me with mock humility. I think well enough 
of my work, but my good opinion of it does not blind me to the 
fact that it is not of the best. It lacks passion. ... 


To Mrs. J. P. Cooxr 


Grace Church Rectory, December 15, 1903. 
Dear Mary: 

. . - L wish you could have been here a week ago Sunday to 
have helped to keep the twentieth anniversary of my entrance 
upon the Rectorship of Grace Church. The anniversary busi- 
ness has been so much overdone in clerical circles of late years, 
that I kept the thing dark, perhaps too dark, as a number of 
persons in this neighborhood have told me that they should 
have been glad to be present had they known about it. The 
Sermon, rather a long one, is to be printed, by request of the 
Vestry, and of course I shall send you a copy. I wonder if you 
happen to have kept the Sermon I preached, under similar cir- 
cumstances, at Worcester twenty-one years ago. ... I pur- 
posely avoided re-reading the All Saints’ Sermon before writ- 
ing the New York one, lest I should fall into the same line of 
treatment. Judge of my dismay when I discovered afterwards 
that I had practically done so. So much for unconscious 
cerebration. ... 


To tHE Rev. N. B. W. GaLtuweEy 


February 12, 1904. 
. . . It is pleasant to see that California has shown its ap- 
preciation of Parsons, and its satisfaction with his recent deci- 


375 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


sion, by sending him to the General Convention—a deserved 
tribute. You, I see, are at the head of the Missionary Board 
besides being an alternate deputy. These things make me ex- 
tremely proud of Grace Church’s representation on ‘“The 
Slope.” Ishall hope that by some stroke of luck you may come 
to Boston along with Parsons. I am glad to know that 
has made a good beginning in his new parish. Though not intel- 
lectually very strong, he is every inch a man and is bent on 
doing a man’s work. The longer I live, the more I am con- 
vinced that intellectuality pure and simple is by no means an 
adequate guarantee of success in the Christian ministry. The 
head qualities are exceedingly important and will win a man 
transient reputation; but to staying power, in the parochial 
sense of the phrase, the heart qualities are even more essen- 
taller. 





To tHe Rev. Joun Futton, D.D. 


February 19, 1904. 
My Dear Dr. Furton: 

The kind terms in which you express yourself with respect to 
my fitness for the presidency of the House of Deputies is nat- 
urally most gratifying. It is equally pleasant to sce a cool- 
ness of two years’ standing dispelled by cordial expressions of 
personal respect and regard, emanating simultaneously from 
each of us, when neither was aware that the other was about 
to speak. 

After giving careful consideration to all that you urge in 
your letter of Wednesday, I find myself unshaken in the belief 
that I can be of far more use to the Church on the floor of 
the House of Deputies than in the chair. Even if such an un- 
derstanding were arrived at as the one you suggest, namely, 
that I, by general consent, might from time to time leave the 
chair and take part in the debates, I cannot think that the 
precedent so established would be a good one. My observa- 
tion covers now a rather long past, and in reviewing my expe- 
rience of public assemblies, I do not recall a single instance in 
which the presiding officer did not lose prestige by taking the 

376 


HERESIES 


floor, and I recall some instances in which he damaged himself 
very seriously in the opinion of the House. 

There is another consideration, upon which you do not touch 
but which influences me very strongly. I have now held for 
several successive Conventions, and should probably by cour- 
tesy be allowed to hold in this coming Convention, the chair- 
manship of the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. 
All my ambitions, as you are aware, have been in the direction 
of improving the structural features of the Episcopal Church. 
My aims may have been mistaken ones and my methods unwise; 
but all the same they have been mine. I have, therefore, valued 
and continue to value the chairmanship in question as I could 
no other official position in the gift of the House. You will, I 
think, see the force of this consideration, now that I have stated 
it, and will acknowledge that it ought to weigh. 

I still favour your candidacy more than that of any other 
man, and think that the difficulty with regard to sight would 
prove less serious than you imagine, always provided that Sec- 
retary Hutchins is on hand to prompt the chair. Without that 
valuable help, I am afraid that even Dr. Dix’s crop of laurels 
would have suffered loss. Deafness is an out and out disqual- 
ification for a presiding officer, as was shown at the late Mis- 
sionary Conference at Washington; but I do not think that 
dimness of vision need necessarily be. I fully agree with you 
that laymen ought to be called more frequently to the chair, 
especially when we happen to have one in the House so singu- 
larly competent as Packard... . 


To tHe Rr. Rev. Winti1am Lawrence, D.D. 


February 27, 1904. 
My Dear Lawrence: 

Accept my heartiest congratulations. At the end of the 
next ten years, may you keep your anniversary, not in Trinity 
Church but in St. Botolph’s by the Charles. (What a musical 
designation that is!) I am very anxious to hear how the sug- 
gestion of reproducing the Lincolnshire Church strikes the Bos- 
tonians. I shall be greatly disappointed in them if they do not 

877 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


respond with enthusiasm to the suggestion. Should it be acted 
upon, as I trust it will be, you and I need not quarrel as to the 
genesis of the dream, though I am prepared to make affidavit 
as to the place and time when the thought came to me. 

How fortunate it is that you were not tied strictly by the 
will to placing the Church in Waltham or Watertown. The 
Garden City Cathedral is a monumental warning against that 
sort of blunder. By putting it on the Charles, which washes 
Watertown as well as Boston, you will in a manner comply 
with the wishes of the testatrix, and I earnestly hope that the 
point selected will be one within easy walking distance of Har- 
vard College, upon which institution I trust that St. Botolph’s 
may exercise the same sort of influence which we are expecting 
the Cathedral of St. John the Divine to exert on Columbia. If 
you would like to see them, I can send you in a few weeks a 
copy of the Constitution and Statutes of our Cathedral. Just 
now they are undergoing revision, but I hope to get the com- 
pleted document through the press within a month. I fancy 
that your Cathedral will be finished a good while before this 
one arrives at completion. Just now we are practically at a 
standstill. 

With renewed congratulations upon this (to all but your- 
self) unlooked for benefaction to the Diocese of Massachusetts, 
I am, 

Most truly yours. 


To Mrs. Witu1am B. Horrman 


. . « [am standing by as long as I can for the reason that 
I shall have to be absent all of October in connection with the 
General Convention, which this year meets in Boston. It is 
hard for me to realize that I am now, in point of seniority of 
service, though probably not by the actual number of my 
years, the father of the House of Deputies. Some of my 
friends, moved doubtless by this fact, are urging me to accept 
the chairmanship vacated by the withdrawal of Dr. Dix; but 
I entertain the same repugnance to the office that most of our 
public men seem to be feeling just now towards the Vice- 


378 


HERESIES 


presidency of the United States; so I propose to have my own 
way and stay on the “floor,” partly, no doubt, because to use 
the wise little Royal’s language, ‘““Grandpapa likes to talk.” 
He certainly does when important issues are at stake in the 
Church, and there are plenty of these likely to be discussed at 
Boston in October... . 

You will think that we have all turned ritualists when you 
see the little choir which Deaconess Gardner has dressed up for 
the Italian Services at Grace Chapel, which we now have every 
Sunday afternoon at four. I broke off my narrative at this 
point in order to go into the Day Nursery and see if I could 
not get a picture of the choir to enclose, and was fortunate 
enough to find one. The children are dressed in cardinal red 
with white caps, and the effect from an esthetic point of view 
is certainly very pleasing. I attended the Service last Sunday 
afternoon and heard a sermon—presumably a good one—by 
Mr. Bailey in the Italian tongue. I asked one of the mothers 
after the Service whether she had understood the discourse and 
was relieved to be told that she had. The gathering of men, 
women, and children on the occasion was most picturesque, and 
one might have imagined himself in an Italian village. 


To Rozpert Treat Partneg, Esa. 


June 29, 1904, 
My Dear Mr. Parne: 

I have read with close attention and deep interest your 
pamphlet on The Spiritual Efficiency of the Church, and con- 
sider myself honored at having been quoted therein. At the 
same time, it would scarcely be honest in me to profess entire 
agreement with the positions taken up by you in your argu- 
ment. What both of us have in common is an intense desire 
to see a better unity prevail among the followers of Our Lord 
Jesus, and more especially here in America. Where we differ 
is with respect to the principles of comprehension and inclu- 
sion. 'To take Canon Henson’s position seems to me tanta- 
mount to saying that we have Church Unity already if we 
would only think so, and that all that is needed is a wider prev- 

379 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


alence of comity, amity, courtesy, etc., etc. The visible ex- 
pression of this view would seem to be the Federation of 
Churches; but I confess that to my mind the Federation of 
Churches is a very different thing indeed from the sort of Unity 
described in the parable of the Vine and the Branches. I can- 
not believe that a number of denominations glued at the edges 
would be a real Unity, for the parts thus stuck together would 
break off on the original lines of cleavage at the slightest pro- 
vocation. My deep persuasion is that the Church of America, 
if we are ever to attain to it, will have in it as a necessary 
feature historic continuity with the past. There are but two 
claimants to such continuity that can see further back than 
the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, the Roman Com- 
munion and our own. I am an Episcopalian because I seem to 
see in the Episcopal Church possibilities of expansion, inclu- 
sion and adaptation which I nowhere else discern. If I thought 
that Congregationalism offered a more probable ground of 
reunion than Episcopacy, I would turn Congregationalist to- 
morrow, just as I should turn Romanist were I convinced of 
the soundness of the Papal claim. My steadfast endeavor 
now these forty years has been to help liberalize the Episcopal 
Church, not in the sense of watering down its fundamental doc- 
trines till they should mean nothing in particular, nor yet of 
reducing its ceremonial to a minimum for the sake of conciliat- 
ing the non-liturgical Christian, but wholly and always to make 
it structurally more widely inclusive of all who love the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and in temper and feeling more sympathetic 
towards them that are without. 

You will readily see that this position is very dissimiliar to 
Henson’s. How indifferently I have succeeded in winning 
disciples to the view of the matter above suggested no one 
knows better than I; but the thesis is the thesis with which I 
set out in the ministry in the early 60s and by which I abide. 

Again thanking you for the opportunity of reading your 
highly suggestive monograph, with a good half of which I am 
in hearty accord, I remain, 

Most truly yours... 


380 


HERESIES 


Grace Church Rectory, 
July 12, 1904. 
My Dear Miss K : 

The death of Bishop Huntington has awakened in me mem- 
ories very similar to those which have visited you. To be sure, 
I first knew him when I was a young man, while your earliest 
recollections of him are those of a child; but to both you and 
me he was an object of deep attachment. Few indeed have 
taken such a hold of my affections at the time of life when af- 
fections are strongest. To his influence as a preacher, I owe 
my first interest in religion and religious things; and _ all 
through the days of my earlier ministry, I constantly looked 
up to him for guidance and counsel. 

It was a grand life, fittingly brought to a close under the 
great spreading elm-trees which he so dearly loved. I shall 
always be thankful that I knew him there at the farm, as well 
as in the activities of his public life at Cambridge, Boston and 
Syracuse, 

In my judgment, our American Community could show no 
more dignified figure than his, nor was there any tongue among 
us by which the dialect of devotion was more beautifully and 
more powerfully employed. It is an honor to anyone to have, 
at any time, assisted him in his work, and this honor your 
father and I may both of us claim. 





381 


XIT 


THE CATHEDRAL 


nature craved to be the expression of his ideals 

for Church unity was provided Dr. Huntington 
in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, the plan for 
which was inaugurated in the year 1887, the corner- 
stone being laid in 1892. 

To the work of the Cathedral he devoted himself, his 
thought, and time, in a most generous fashion, serving 
for twenty-two years as trustee. Its organization, or 
constitution, had his most careful consideration. Just 
what a cathedral was, or ought to be, in the United 
States, was at that time by no means clear. It has 
not yet been adequately defined. There are difficulties 
enough in regard to cathedral foundations in England, 
but there they have, at least, long, historic precedents 
and traditions to build upon, and the program is quite 
a different one from what it is in this country. What 
historically a cathedral was in the far distant past may 
be determined with a certain amount of accuracy; and 
the problem becomes one of so transforming the ancient 
foundation that the cathedral shall be a serviceable in- 
stitution in the life of the modern world. Here in 
America, one grants at the beginning that the last thing 

382 


\ TANGIBLE and visible symbol which his 


THE CATHEDRAL 


to be desired, by universal confession, is an imitation of 
the Old-World product. The cathedral in America 
must be a democratic institution, built up out of the life 
of the people, and serving that people’s life. At the 
same time, it must be so organized as to be wisely 
guided by competent diocesan authority. A combina- 
tion of these required factors is by no means easy. 

Dr. Huntington had it clearly in mind that a great 
cathedral, in the most cosmopolitan city of the most 
cosmopolitan nation on earth, ought to express in 
simple and well-understood terms the ambition of 
its church to serve all the people of the land, and, 
in some true manner, to lead the way toward Christian 
unity. It must be acknowledged that to a large 
degree he succeeded in setting the right stamp upon 
the Cathedral’s constitution, and that the later de- 
velopment of the Cathedral’s life has been true to the 
Church’s thought, that the great building is held by our 
Church in trust, to be in every way, as completely as 
possible, at the service of the whole people of the com- 
munity. 

Dr. Huntington was concerned, not only with the 
Cathedral’s constitution, but with the Fabric itself. 
From the very first, he was chairman of the Committee 
on the Fabric, and devoted many hours to the meetings 
of this committee and to work outside the meetings in 
connection with it. He became the controlling force 
in establishing the ideals which were to guide the plans 
for the Fabric, and in the development of the work of 
construction, as it was carried on through many years. 

383 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


In an enterprise of this nature, a one-man control, or 
even an approach to it, is inevitably fraught with peril. 
The dominance of Dr. Huntington was based primarily 
upon his whole-hearted devotion to the cause, and it 
was fortified by the confidence which he had inspired 
in the people of the community, which found expression 
in generous gifts, and in unquestioning reliance upon 
his judgment. It must be frankly confessed, however, 
that the peril was not avoided, and that the situation in- 
vited disaster, which has only been averted by the wis- 
dom of his successors in later years. The errors of the 
earlier time have had first to be corrected, before the 
growing Fabric could advance to new dimensions and to 
a satisfying unity. It would doubtless have been better 
if the principle which controlled him in Grace Church, 
by which he left the art of music to the musician, had 
controlled him here, and led him to leave the art of archi- 
tecture to the architect. At the very beginning, there 
were circumstances which made it impossible to secure 
perfect freedom of choice between plans of architects 
which were submitted. Dr. Huntington dominated in 
the choice of architects which was finally made, a choice 
which came later to be regretted. Afterward he clung 
with a sort of obstinate loyalty to the architects chosen. 
The loyalty one can understand and applaud. It 
proved costly, however, in the delay which it occasioned 
in placing the whole work under more competent 
leadership. It was due to the patient and persistent 
studies of Canon Jones, that in the end the faults of 
construction and the possibility of their correction were 
384 


Th? Sas Ls 
ic TAG"! ’ 
a4 d vas : q 


Ss 


ae’, Se 


+ 


s 
Aon 
: ‘ 
Parl 
sony 


rd 








HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL CHAPEL 
CATHEDRAL OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE 





THE CATHEDRAL 


discovered.’ Over this matter many debates occurred 
in the Fabric Committee. 

In an architectural journal published in the year 1905, 
a writer gives expression to his ideals in regard to a 
church building in the following words: 


The earliest name for a Christian was disciple, and the earli- 
est name, perhaps, for Christ was Teacher. The Church which 
perpetuates His life and endeavors to make it real to humanity 
is likewise the teacher. The term Ecclesia Docens is more 
than merely an indication of part of the Church’s activity. It 
is, rightly understood, an expression indicative of the Church’s 
essential character and vital function. 

It is possible to carry over this thought into the housing of 
TReVCNULCH a... 3 

The Church must be a building which in itself, as one enters 
its door, invites to worship . . . and, at the same time, it must 
provide the proper framework for the speaking voice of the 
preacher. ... 

Neither the “back parlor” nor the lecture hall can be a 
church and bring a man to his knees, but no more can a stately 
pile of aisles and arches that can house only a spectacle and 
never an “audible,” and where the word from the lips of a man 
becomes a jumble of echoing incoherence. “In the church,” 
said Saint Paul, “I had rather speak five words with my under- 
standing than ten thousand words in a tongue.” 

It is quite possible to speak of either of these elements in a 
way to belittle them or to brand them as selfish ends. The 
sense of worship may be faulted as an emotional sentiment, and 
the desire to hear a sermon may be called merely a thirst for 
information or for a sensation. Either one may be debased, 
either one may be conceivably the expression of a selfish wish 
for a pleasurable experience; but we know that at heart these 
things are essentially great, and that they are equally the de- 
mands of a human soul for the best, not merely for itself, but 


385 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


that a man may turn that best to the service of his fellow man 
and to the glory of his God. 


In writing to the author of this article, Dr. Hunting- 
ton expressed himself as follows: 


I began at the beginning of the Brickbuilder’s symposium, 
and found my dissent becoming more and more emphatic as I 
read, until I reached your contribution and discovered therein 
my own sentiments. If religion be nothing more than a vague 
consciousness of the presence of a “power not ourselves,” those 
uplifting influences which Dr. and the others ascribe to 
Gothic architecture may be all sufficient, and one can attain 
to this psychical condition as easily at Luxor and Thebes as at 
York or Canterbury; but if we have been made aware by mes- 
sage of certain definite truths with regard to our relation to 
God and to the future life, the message must, as you say, find 
articulate expression, either in writing or in speech. 

We had this whole question thoroughly discussed in the 
Board of Trustees of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, at 
the time when the competing architects submitted their designs. 
The result of the competition, I am willing to concede, was a — 
disappointment, since no one of the sixty or more competitors 
presented a design that led the imagination captive; but I for 
one am profoundly thankful that we adopted a plan which 
will at least give ample opportunity for preaching and congre- 
gational singing. To have proceeded on the medieval theory 
that the choir represented heaven and the clergy the saints, 
while without in the distant nave stood a mixed multitude, not 
knowing its right hand from its left, would, in my judgment, 
have been a great mistake. No one will undertake to deny that 
St. Paul’s, London, has done more in the last thirty years for 
the advancement of the religious life of England than any 
other Cathedral or two Cathedrals; and the influence which 
has accomplished this has been the influence of the pulpit. 

But why am I urging all this upon you who have put it all so 
much more forcefully in the Brickbuilder? ‘And therefore I 
say, Amen, So be it.” 





386 


THE CATHEDRAL 


Previously, in a letter to ““The Churchman” in 1901 
relative to proposed improvements in the east end of 
Grace Church which had been adversely criticized in the 
press, Dr. Huntington wrote: 


The plain facts in the case are these. The authorities of 
Grace Church are not proposing to add a choir to their nave 
and transepts; that is not the enterprise they have in hand. 
The architect (the late James Renwick) provided a choir when 
the building was first planned. What is proposed is to add 
to the existing choir (which, though small, will be large enough, 
when cleared of the present obstructions, to accommodate all 
the singers we need) a sanctuary twenty feet in depth. When 
this shall have been done, the total distance from the first step 
of the choir to the east wall of the church will be thirty-six 
feet. It would take a great deal to convince me that in a 
reformed church, which professes to deliver the Gospel in a 
tongue “‘understanded of the people,” any large interval of 
space between the minister and the congregation, when engaged 
in “common” prayer, was desirable. Doubtless the vista of a 
long-drawn choir with fretted vault reaching all the way to 
Fourth Avenue (for why stop at “forty-five feet?) would 
be exceedingly pleasant to the eye, but unless we are in- 
tent upon reverting to the medieval conception of worship 
by proxy, the provision of a spacious cage for the exclusive 
accommodation of the clergy and choristers at the east end of 
our edifice would be most ill-judged. Grace Church has never, 
thus far in its history, stood for any such uncatholic notions 
as the annex which you urge would symbolize, and I trust it 
never will. Grace is a parish church, with the needs and as- 
pirations of a parish church; and there is no desire on the part 
of any of its people to see it turned into a mock-cathedral. 
The basilicas represent the mind of the primitive Church with 
respect to the proximity of priest and people, and if the adop- 
tion of Gothic forms necessarily means the segregation of the 
clergy in the act of worship and the relegating of the people 

387 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


to the place of distant listeners, straining their ears to catch 
echoes of heaven’s song, Gothic architecture will be the sufferer. 
But does it? 


These letters of Dr. Huntington’s clearly enough 
set forth the ideal to which he clung. No one, perhaps, 
will be ready to blame the ideal itself. The difficulties 
arose from the fact of the unwillingness on the part 
of the chairman of the Fabric Committee, after having 
once made clear the ideals and purposes which the 
Cathedral was to serve, to leave the architectural work- 
ing out of the conception in competent architectural 
hands. 

It must, however, be confessed, in spite of the criti- 
cism just made, that Dr. Huntington’s services in the 
whole matter were of the greatest value. He watched 
carefully, even lovingly, every step of the way, and he 
saved his fellow-workers from the commission of many 
costly errors. He delighted in framing the scheme for 
the interior decoration. He gave most careful con- 
sideration to every detail, such, for instance, as the plac- 
ing of the organ. He stood out for English glass in 
the windows as against the architect’s desire for win- 
dows made in America, with all that this at that time 
meant. More than this, he inspired the people of the — 
Church with his own enthusiasm for the carrying out of 
the Cathedral ideal, and it was, without doubt, con- 
fidence in his wisdom and devotion which won many 
to the support of the undertaking. 

In minor points he often brought to bear the impress 

388 


THE CATHEDRAL 


of his fine sentiment and sympathetic touch. The con- 
ception of the Chapels of the Tongues was the product 
of his own poetic soul. These seven chapels, each one 
consecrated to a service in some foreign tongue, will 
forever symbolize the Cathedral’s ambition to include 
within its influence all Christians of whatever nation or 
speech. There was, of course, peril, as always in an 
attempt to realize so ambitious a symbol, in the carry- 
ing out of this plan; but it must be confessed that on 
the whole it has been successfully developed, and that 
it is full of helpfulness in impressing the Cathedral's 
significance. The Chapels have been built with a spirit 
of devotion, and in themselves have added greatly to 
the Cathedral’s esthetic and worshipful appeal. One 
of them, very properly, has been built as a memorial to 
Dr. Huntington himself. 

When all is said and done, it must be acknowledged 
that when the completed Fabric shall at last rise trium- 
phant on its splendid site, and when there shall be read 
the roll of those who have been its founders and build- 
ers, high upon the list will stand the name of William 
Reed Huntington. 

Amid the manifold perplexities and harassing details 
attendant upon the prosecution of the work, Dr. 
Huntington never faltered in the maintenance of his 
ideal of what a Cathedral is, and what it ought to 
signify for the life of the people. This ideal found, for 
him, a noble expression in the words of Gerald Stanley 
Lee. 

389 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


“It would be hard to deny,” wrote this author, ‘that 
if the Christian Church exists for one thing rather than 
another, it exists for the purpose of making God elo- 
quent. And if men are on the street, it must make God 
- eloquent on the street. If the Church building that 
especially represents God on the streets of the city is 
vulgar or hideous or shabby or insincere, or if it is a mere 
sitting-room, with colored windows, where people drop 
in pleasantly for a cozy, comfortable chat with Him be- 
fore whom hell is naked, who stretcheth out the north 
over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon noth- 
ing, why should one notice God? But I do believe 
that the main fact about the church of the future is 
that it is going to take the idea of the incarnation 
seriously. It is going to act on the principle that 
while the Bible has declared in a general way that God 
is a spirit, the most important thing about the spirit, as a 
matter of human history, is that it has always in- 
sisted upon having a body. It also seems to be a matter 
of history that the final test of the vitality and reality 
of a good spirit is that it can get a body. In other 
words, I believe that if the modern church rules the 
modern city, it is going to look impressive. If it rules, 
everybody is going to know it. The only church that 
shall ever rule them shall be a church with the cathedral 
spirit. It shall be a church of the Strong Men. And 
the spirit of the Strong Men shall build on all the great 
streets of the world mighty homes for God. The 
church of the future shall not be one that can be looked 
down on by mere opera-houses, by great hotels or 

390 


THE CATHEDRAL 


temples for feeding people. It shall be one that sug- 
gests, when one looks at it, nations and empires, cen- 
turies of love and sacrifice and patience, and it shall 
gather the great cities like children about its feet.” 


391 


XIII 


CONTINUING THE CHURCH UNITY CAMPAIGN 


ton’s whole life was in itself an ordered effort for 

the promotion of Church Unity. It is interesting, 
however, to consider just what his relation was to some 
of the agencies which were organized to bring this into 
effect, and what his conscious connection with events 
and persons intimately involved in the process. 

It was after the Convention of 1886 in Chicago that 
he came to be recognized, by common consent, on all 
sides, as the leader of this cause. The chairman of the 
committee of the House of Bishops, which in that Con- 
vention had presented the Report on Unity, was quoted 
as saying that “the Report had been rewritten by him 
eleven different times, and each time on his knees.” 
The heart of this report was, however, as all men knew, 
the Quadrilateral which had been formulated by Dr. 
Huntington sixteen years before. T'o him every move- 
ment organized to promote unity turned for advice or 
leadership. This was true of diocesan movements, like 
the Church Unity Society formed in 1887 in the dio- 
cese of Pennsylvania, or of the conference in Connect- 
icut after the Lambeth Declaration of 1908, and of 
local conferences, such as those planned in 1892 by Dr. 

392 


| has been abundantly indicated that Dr. Hunting- 


CHURCH UNITY 


Abbot of Cambridge and by others elsewhere. In 
1887 the Rev. Josiah Strong had a plan for a General 
Conference of Evangelical Christians under the Evan- 
gelical Alliance. In 1888 the American Congress of 
Churches was suggested as an effort to help the cause. 
Dr. Huntington fought shy of these large demonstra- 
tions; and it often taxed his wisdom to restrain and at 
the same time not to quench enthusiasms. Some one 
quoted of him, as a leader of religious thought, what 
Gladstone said of the poet: “It is he who gives back 
to his contemporaries as a river that which he has re- 
ceived from them as vapor.” 

It was the small and unadvertised conference, where 
there was frank conversation from men of all churches, 
that seemed to him at times most full of promise. 
Time has confirmed this judgment, as those who have 
faithfully followed the Church Unity movement are 
well aware. Of this character was the “League of 
Catholic Unity” formed in 1895. It grew out of the 
“Catholic Unity Circle,’ a group which was brought 
together, at Dr. Shields’s suggestion, by Dr. William 
Chauncy Langdon. It had no publicity, but its mem- 
bers met to talk and, through saying all that was in 
their minds, to try to delve to the heart of their subject. 
Its existence was not unknown to those without, and 
it was said of the bishops that they all seemed afraid 
of it. It published finally a Declaration, which gave 
satisfaction to friends of the cause. One of the mem- 
bers, rejoicing greatly in the possession of copies for 
distribution, writes: “I shall give one to the oldest 

393 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


instructor in a well-known Academy who recently 
remarked to a group of. school-boys: ‘If there is 
anything on earth I hate, God knows it is an E/piscopa- 
lian.’”’ ‘That same year Theodore EF’. Seward was pub- 
lishing “The Neo-Christian: A Layman’s Journal of 
Christian Unity,” the motto of which was, “Love your 
neighbor and respect his beliefs.” 

Not every movement, however great his sympathy, 
could win his active membership and coéperation. In 
1893 he had refused to join the “Church Unity So- 
ciety,” fearing, if he did so, to hamper his ambitions » 
along the lines of Constitutional revision in Convention. 

It was natural, his ideals for Unity being matter of 
country-wide knowledge, that new Americans, of 
widely differing Church affiliations, should turn to him 
for counsel, and for support in their undertakings. It 
was true of members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, 
of Old Catholics, and of members of the Swedish 
Church. All alike esteemed him their friend and prof- 
ited not seldom by his sound and helpful advice. He 
was generous, too, in his support of the Swedish work 
in Western dioceses, in Minnesota and Illinois, as well 
as of work of this character nearer home. 

In his own estimation, doubtless, the most significant 
work which he undertook for the promotion of Church. 
Unity was his endeavor, continued through successive 
General Conventions, so to change the fundamental 
laws of the Church as to make practically effective the 
principle of unity enunciated in the Chicago-Lambeth 
Quadrilateral. Already, in the Convention of 1892, the 

394 


CHURCH UNITY 


Convention which marked the completion of the work 
of Prayer Book Revision, the first steps were taken 
looking toward revision of the Church’s Constitution 
and Canons. 

In the year 1892 he reached perhaps the high-water 
mark of his power. He was then fifty-four years old. 
He had been for ten years at Grace Church, and was 
established as a center of influence in New York. His 
labors in carrying through successive conventions the 
work of Prayer Book Revision were accomplished. He 
was able to feel a certain sense of vindication for his 
choice of Church Unity as his life’s motive power and 
goal. In answer to a congratulatory letter sent to him 
at the close of the Convention of 1892, he wrote: “I 
hope you will not think that the Revision of the Prayer 
Book was a question of ritual with me. I am looking 
forward to the time when the Church of Christ will be 
one Church, and all my work on revision has had in 
view the getting our own Church into the best possible 
position for meeting that issue when it shall come.” It 
was in that Convention that he made one of his most 
famous and masterful speeches. Mr. Biddle of Phila- 
delphia had stigmatized the idea of Church Unity, using 
Senator Ingalls’s phrase, as an “iridescent dream’; and 
Dr. Huntington, seizing upon the phrase, had made it 
his own, marshaling the dreams of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and 
the other prophets as the great dreams of humanity, 
dreams that were great because they were realizable and 
had been realized, as this dream would be, and remind- 
ing his hearers that iridescence was the characteristic 

395 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


of the rainbow, and that the rainbow was the emblem 
of hope. 

In the next General Convention, that of 1895, at 
Minneapolis, he launched the Amendment to the Con- 
stitution, in which it was proposed to allow a bishop to 
take under his spiritual oversight any congregation of 
Christian people who accepted the Quadrilateral plat- 
form. This proposal was voted down, though receiv- 
ing a large support, especially on the part of the clergy. 
In the press this Convention was spoken of as “reac- 
tionary,” and as marking “the collapse of the Quadri- 
lateral,’ as in effect “repealing the Chicago-Lambeth 
platform.” Dr. Huntington was, however, far from 
being discouraged. He felt that progress had been 
made. Indeed in this year, and in the years which fol- 
lowed, his patience and hopefulness, in planning and 
carrying through his legislative program, were notable 
and inspiring. In speaking after the Convention of 
1892 to his people from the Grace Church pulpit in 
regard to this matter, he said: “Were I to say all that 
is in my heart and mind as to the possibilities of this 
new venture of faith on the Church’s part [ Constitu- 
tional revision], I might be betrayed into expressions 
of hopefulness which would strike most of you as over- 
wrought. Suffice it to say that never, since the Refor- 
mation, has a fairer prospect been opened to the Church 
of our affections than is opened to her to-day. No in- 
terpretation of the divine purpose with respect to this 
broad land we name America, has one-half so much of 
likelihood as that which makes our country the predes- 

396 


CHURCH UNITY 


tined building-plot for the Church of the Reconcilia- 
tion. All signs point that way. To us, if we have but 
the eyes to see it, there falls, not through any merit of 
our own, but by the accident, if it be right to use that 
word, by the accident of historical association, the Op- 
portunity of leadership. It is possible for us, at this 
crisis of our destiny, so to mould our organic law that 
we shall be brought into sympathetic contact with hun- 
dreds of thousands of our fellow-countrymen who wor- 
ship the same God, hold the same faith, love the same 
Christ. 

On the other hand, it is possible for us so to fence 
ourselves off from this huge family of our fellow- 
believers as to secure for our lasting heritage only the 
cold privileges of a proud and selfish isolation. There 
could be no real catholicity in such a device as that. 
We have the opportunity of growing into a great and 
comprehensive Church. We have the opportunity of 
dwindling into a self-conscious, self-conceited and un- 
sympathetic sect. Which shall it be? With those to 
whom, under God, the moulding of our organic law has 
been entrusted, it largely rests to say.” 

After the Convention of 1898, he repeated the above, 
and added these words: “Let me pause to say a word 
or two to those (and they are many) who fail to see any 
connection whatsoever between Church councils and 
personal religion. Organization and administration 
seem to them things far removed from the well-being 
of the human soul. But organization and administra- 
tion, dear friends, are to the fishers of men what their 

397 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


nets were to the plain fisher-folk who plied their craft 
upon the waters of Galilee; every now and then we see 
them—Andrew, Peter and the rest—in their boat or on 
the shore washing or mending their nets. The revision 
of a Church constitution is not an act which immedi- 
ately and directly occasions a miraculous draught 
of fishes; it is the washing and the mending of the net.” 

It was in Minneapolis, in defense of his measure, that 
he made one of his greatest speeches before Convention. 
“T am not sure,” wrote Dr. Donald, “that the closing 
words of your speech will not give you permanent fame 
among the few men who nobly use the English tongue. 
I care, as you know, very little for Conventions, but I 
confess that I wish I had been there for the intense 
pleasure, the sensation of goose-flesh, and feeling my 
backbone open and shut, would have given me.” 

In 1898, he attempted to amend the Constitution by 
introducing the name of God into its opening sentence, 
and solemnly affirming the Church’s faith in Holy 
Scripture as containing all things necessary to salva- 
tion, and its adherence to the doctrine of the Holy 
Catholic Church as set forth in the Creeds. But this 
resolution failed of passage. 

Then at San Francisco, in 1901, the Huntington 
Amendment, in substance the proposal of 1895, was 
approved, and it was finally adopted at the Boston 
Convention of 1904. And in 1907, at Richmond, the 
plan of an introductory section, in the form of a Pre- 
amble, was approved. This Preamble was a brief 
statement of the main principles of religious faith and 

398 


CHURCH UNITY 


ecclesiastical polity upon which, as members of the his- 
toric Church of the English-speaking peoples, we are 
substantially agreed,—the divine origin of the Scrip- 
tures, the sufficiency of the primitive Creeds as con- 
trasted with fine-spun systems of theology, the value of 
the Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself, the im- 
portance of a settled Ministry as to which the memory 
of man runneth not to the contrary, and the Church 
membership of all who have been baptized into the Holy 
Name, by whatever denominational appellative they 
may happen to be known. “It is hoped by its friends,” 
said Dr. Huntington in speaking of it, “that, if made 
a permanent part of the Constitution, three years hence, 
this statement of what may be called the first principles 
of American Churchmanship will prove a useful tract 
for the times.” A part of the plan was, at the same 
time, to remove the Thirty-nine Articles from their 
present place within the covers of the Book of Common 
Prayer. This measure failed of adoption; and the 
Preamble itself was not ratified in the Convention which 
met the year following Dr. Huntington’s death, in 
Cincinnati. 

During most of the time that this debate as to the 
Constitution was in progress, the Church had been also 
concerned with the proposal to change its own name. 
Had the suggestion to drop the words “Protestant 
Episcopal” from the Prayer Book’s title-page been one 
capable of a de novo consideration, it would undoubtedly 
have made a strong appeal to Dr. Huntington. He 
was, however, persuaded that it partook of a partizan 

399 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


character, and that any action favoring it would be 
proclaimed as a triumph of the Catholic party, and so 
defeat the very aim which he had at heart, the building 
up in America of the Church of the Reconciliation, and 
imperil that principle of “Liberty under law,” “which 
shall even yet, please God, enable us, here in America, 
to unify the Church without help from Italy.” He 
would have the Church not assume but win the name 
“American Catholic.” | 

He carried on through these years a voluminous cor- 
respondence with the friends of Unity in his own 
Church and in all the Churches. Not always, of course, 
were his correspondents sympathetic with his vision. 
A Congregational minister wrote in 1899: “Differen- 
tiation is the mark of progress. I am continually glad 
that I live in the time of its increase. I never deplore 
the divisions of Christendom but rejoice in them,—that 
so many souls can find close associations to suit them. 
‘Shall we have them in Heaven?’ I think so, and I 
hope so.” But another Congregational minister, at 
about the same time, wrote: “Whenever I take a 
spiritual bath in St. John’s Gospel, and then, with eyes 
clarified, come back into the ecclesiastical world, I won- 
der whether we are not even quenching the Spirit of 
God by our schisms. I wish you might have such uni- 
versal support in the Episcopal Church as would make 
your cause to appear among the most holy of all 
causes.” 

He was in constant correspondence with Dr. Shields, 

4.00 


CHURCH UNITY 


and with Dr. Egbert Smythe and Dr. L. W. Bacon. 
The last-named wrote as to stressing the distinction be- 
tween “believing in the Church” and “believing the 
Church,” and as to urging municipal vs. national Chris- 
tianity. “Let one bishop,” he says, “in the Spirit of 
Christ become in his diocese the center of Catholic 
unity.” “The important point is not whether the 
Church ought to be many or one, but that it is one.” 

One bishop writes him urging a stronger move to- 
ward unity with the Lutherans; another, to thank him 
for the practical help of his Church Unity spirit in a 
far-away missionary diocese. Still another missionary 
bishop wrote to urge the wide-spread distribution of the 
republished “Church Idea” as a help toward Unity 
sentiment. 

He is kept in touch, through his correspondence, with 
the movement everywhere. He is cheered in 1897 by a 
message from England that the great Methodist 
preacher, Hugh Price Hughes, is “encouraged as to the 
Unity movement among Free Churches in England, 
coincident with Pope Leo’s check to the Romanizers.” 
The challenge of this wide-spread interest he certainly 
met whole-heartedly. For he became a tireless writer 
and speaker for the cause. As early as 1887 he deliv- 
ered an address on “Continuity” in debate with Presby- 
terians, in which he distinguished primitive Episcopacy 
from later hierarchical forms. The fourth item of the 
Quadrilateral was naturally the storm-center in much of 
the debate as to Unity. Im a later address, he urges 

401 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


that the phrase, the “Historic Episcopate,” which he had 
himself invented, “‘was intended to conciliate rather than 
to antagonize. It presents the Ejpiscopate as a fact 
rather than a theory. The cordial and sympathetic way 
of commending the Ejpiscopate is to show that it helps to 
coordinate the two elements in the organic life of the 
Church, those of leadership and counsel. Where to the 
former everything is sacrificed there is tyranny, where 
to the latter, confusion and chaos.” 

In 1899, in a sermon on the subject at Trinity 
Church, Boston, he declares that the justification for 
the Protestant Episcopal Church supposing itself 
called of God to special activity in the promotion of 
Unity, rests in the fact that “it makes an honest and 
measurably successful endeavor to keep the two sorts 
of Christians within speaking distance of each other.” 
“It is a most noteworthy fact,” he concludes, “that the 
historic Church of the race to which God seems to be 
assigning leadership on earth, is the only Church any- 
where which so much as attempts to do equal justice 
both to the sacramentalists and the antisacramentalists.” 

His sermon entitled the “Talisman of Unity,” 
preached in 1899, had a very wide circulation and was 
acclaimed in every quarter. Invitations to speak at 
conferences poured in upon him, only a few of which, | 
naturally, he could accept. That same year he deliv- 
ered an address full of hopefulness and buoyancy on 
the “Outlook for Christian Unity at the Century’s 
Close,” in connection with the New York Diocesan 
Convention. 

402 


CHURCH UNITY 


It was several years before this that he wrote, for the 
appendix of Dr. Schaff’s pamphlet on the “Reunion of 
Christendom,” the following: 


Conceiving that in no way can the contributors to this Ap- 
pendix better requite the hospitality which has brought them 
under one roof than by emulating the frankness of their host, 
the present writer will make no secret of his belief in the irenic 
value of the Chicago-Lambeth Declaration. The arguments 
in its favor may be briefly summarized as follows: 

1. The historical element in Christianity is emphasized in 
contrast with the metaphysical. The Church is presented as a 
social organism which has come down through time, dowered 
with certain possessions, to wit, (a) records, (b) watch-words, 
(c) symbolic usages, (d) an elastic, but still self-consistent and 
continuous form of governance. 

2. As a result of this historical method of going at the mat- 
ter, there follows the neutralization of much territory hereto- 
fore reckoned as hopelessly given over to belligerency,—for 
example, theories of inspiration, philosophies of sacramental 
grace, rationales of Church government. These are matters 
about which, according to the Lambeth Declaration, we can, 
as members of the one Body, safely agree to differ. It is 
enough if we accept (a) the Bible as conveying an authentic 
revelation, (b) the primitive creeds as embodying, in brief, the 
substance of what has been thus revealed, (c) the two sacra- 
ments of Christ’s appointment as institutes which, however 
apprehended intellectually, must on no account be suffered 
to fall into disuse; and (d) the Episcopate as that form of 
order which on the score of actual continuity and long sur- 
vival could, with the least offence to other polities, ultimately 
replace them. 

These principles of unity, if valid at all, are of course valid 
for the whole of Christendom, but even though the practical 
embodiment of them were, for the present, to be confined to 
our own national limits, we should have in a United Church of 
the United States something as much better than any shadowy 

403 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Denominational League as the Republic is better than the 
Confederation. 

All the while he was preparing for the press his more 
carefully thought-out presentations of the cause, “The 
Peace of the Church,” which formed the Bohlen Lec- 
tures of 1891, and “A National Church,” the Bedell 
Lectures of 1897. These were read far and wide and 
did much to commend the cause. The Bishop of Edin- 
burgh wrote expressing his delight over the former 
book, saying that he had pursued the unusual course of 
reading the book before thanking the author, and ‘“‘with 
no embarrassment suffered.” 

By 1908, the discussion regarding the change of name 
had waxed warm. Dr. Huntington had warded off 
perilous action regarding it in the New York Conven- 
tion by a course which at first puzzled his friends, but 
which Judge Packard designated “the happy thought 
of an alert parliamentarian”; and at the Church Con- 
gress of that year he read a paper on the subject. 

In 1905 he published a notable sermon on ‘“‘Federa- 
tion.” He had always been glad to codperate, with ad- 
vice or otherwise, in federation movements, provided it 
was made clear that these movements were only par- 
tial contrivances for practical codperation, and in no 
way conceived of as substitutes for the vastly greater 
cause of Christian Unity. He had often uttered warn- 
ings in regard to the dangers here, and this sermon, set- 
ting forth clearly the distinction between Federation 
and Unity was received by many with aa appre- 
ciation. 

4.04 


CHURCH UNITY 


In 1907 appeared his famous “Tract XCI,” which 
published in the “Hibbert Journal.” It set forth his 
ideals as to the Preamble, and the omission of the 
Thirty-nine Articles from the Prayer Book, which were 
to be the concern of the approaching Richmond Con- 
vention. 

First attempts at drafting something in the nature 
of a Preamble to the Constitution go back to the Con- 
ventions of 1895 and 1898. ‘The original form of the 
Preamble, for the Convention of 1907, as proposed by 
Dr. Huntington, was as follows: 


This American Church, first planted in Virginia, early in 
the Seventeenth Century, by representatives of the ancient 
Church of England; acknowledging the Holy Scriptures of the 
Old and New Testaments to be the record of God’s Revelation 
of Himself in his Son, and to contain all things necessary to 
Salvation; holding the Catholic Creeds, to wit, the Apostles’ 
Creed and the Nicene Creed, to be a sufficient statement of the 
Christian Faith; maintaining the Orders of the Sacred Muinis- 
try in such form as from the hands of faithful men it first 
received the same; reverently conserving the Sacraments or- 
dained by Christ Himself; and accounting to be members of the 
flock of Christ all who have been duly baptized into the holy 
Name; has ordained and established, for the furtherance of the 
work to which it has been called of God, the following 

CoNSTITUTION. 


This was in some respects modified by amendments 
offered at the Convention, which Dr. Huntington 
promptly accepted, though he was far from believing 
that they were improvements of the original draft. 
Nevertheless he said of the Convention, speaking to a 

405 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


friend, “This is the most liberal Convention I have ever 
known.” 

Dr. Huntington defended his Preamble in a letter 
which he wrote to “The Living Church,” in reply to an 
unsigned article which had appeared in that paper en- 
titled “The Relation of the Constitution and Canons 
of the American Church to the Fundamental Law of 
the Church.” This letter will bear quoting in part: 


With the writer’s main contention as to the secondary and 
subordinate character of written constitutions, as these stand 
related to the real organic life of the Church, I have no quarrel. 
In fact, I would go farther than he in this direction, and would 
also apply to the State what he affirms of the Church. The 
Constitution of the United States, for example, contains ever 
so many words and phrases, literally scores of them, for which 
no definitions are vouchsafed in the instrument itself. Much 
was taken for granted by the framers, as being already a 
recognized part of the unwritten, organic law that had given 
form to human society ever since human society began to be. 
Probably for this very reason, these same framers thought it 
expedient to prefix to their written constitution a Preamble, 
setting forth no fewer than seven purposes which it was hoped 
the publication of the document would serve. They were not 
establishing the State;—that had been established centuries 
before they were born; they were simply justifying a new in- 
corporation of the State within certain metes and bounds that 
were henceforth to be acknowledged as independently national. 
They did but adapt first principles brought from the old world 
to certain conditions which had developed in the new. 

I go with the writer also in all that he says about the elusive- 
ness of the distinction between “constitutions” and what are 
variously known as “laws,” “statutes” and “‘canons.”? <A dis- 
tinction there is, but that the gulf is neither so wide nor so 
deep as is commonly supposed, is evidenced by the fact that the 

406 


CHURCH UNITY 


same subject-matter is in some of our states put into constitu- 
tional, and in others of them into statutory form; the truth 
being that constitutions are but canons written upon parchment 
hard to tear, while canons are constitutions written upon paper 
easy to tear. But there is an untearable something back of 
both the sorts of them. 

The precise point at which in my judgment your contributor 
misses his way is where (quoting no doubt from memory), he 
writes as follows :— 

“It [the Preamble] did preserve the historical date a. p. 
1607, but in such false light and connection as to constitute a 
fault instead of merit; for it might, being by the Preamble 
said to be the date of the founding of the American Church— 
which it clearly was not—be readily supposed to mark the day 
of a break with the past.” 

Here, by substituting one word for another, doubtless in per- 
fect innocence, the writer muddles the whole stream of his argu- 
ment. ‘The Preamble says nothing at all about the “founding” 
of any American Church; what it does say is that in 1607 “this 
American Church” was “planted” here. There is all the dif- 
ference in the world between the two methods of speech. We 
found what is de novo, or freshly conceived, we plant only what 
is already alive. The American Church when “planted” stood 
for a living entity anterior and pre-existent. ‘Thou hast 
brought a vine out of Egypt, thou hast cast out the heathen 
and planted it.” There is the whole story in a nutshell. Had 
the vine been a dead thing, the planting it would have been of 
no avail; but having in it the secret of life, “‘when it had taken 
root it filled the land.” This is no play upon words, the phrases 
of the Preamble were not carelessly selected or put together 
at haphazard. There was a vine brought out of England and 
“planted.” It took root. Whether it shall “fill the land” is 
another question, and one that depends in part on the vine- 
dressers. National churches have no such guarantee of per- 
petuity as attaches to the church catholic. Offshots from the 
great vine may, for cause, be permitted to perish, even as 
“candlesticks”? may be removed. 


407 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


But this is an aside. Clearly your contributor ought, on 
his own showing, to be for the Preamble rather than against 
it; since the Preamble does but preface the Constitution with a 
warning ;—Do not imagine that this is all. Do not mistake an 
instrument for the reality which, gua instrument, it exists only 
to make operative. Unless I have misunderstood your contrib- 
utor, this is the very thing he is driving at. An inkling that 
he has put himself on the wrong side appears in what is said 
near the end of the article about amending the Preamble. If, 
after all, we must have it, let it be thus and so, the writer re- 
marks. But has he duly weighed the difficulties in the way 
of undoing what is partly done, in order to start fresh? Under 
our system, constitutional amendments, after having been 
passed to what may be called their “first reading,” are no 
longer susceptible of change. When it comes to the “second 
reading,” in the Convention next following the one in which they 
were approved, it is “Take it or leave it.” The alteration of so 
much as a comma has become impossible. 

In all candor, I submit to your able contributor this con- 
sideration—would it not be wiser of him to accept the proposed 
Preamble, with all its imperfections, (as he accounts them,) on 
its head, rather than pull down a structure partly built, with 
a view to rearing on its ruins something only a very little 
better? I appeal to him, in the interest of peace and progress, 
—“Come over and help us.” 


There was an understood connection between the in- 
sertion of the Preamble before the Constitution and the 
removing of the Thirty-nine Articles from between the 
covers of the Book of Common Prayer to a place in 
the Archives. ‘This was made abundantly clear by the 
publication in the “Hibbert Journal” of Dr. Hunting- 
ton’s paper entitled “Tract XCI.” This understood 
connection between these two matters resulted in two 
lines of objection. ‘There was objection on the part of 

408 


CHURCH UNITY 


some to including in the Constitution any expression 
whatever as to doctrine; others were opposed to the re- 
moving of the Thirty-nine Articles to the indefinite 
limbo of the Archives, whatever they might be. While 
in spite of these objections the Preamble was destined 
to pass at the Richmond Convention in 1907, it failed 
of ratification in 1910, the objections by that time hay- 
ing gained in force, and finally having their way. 


409 


anata 


tee h 
Hi he s} ie Wi 
“a 


at ana 
f P Wer i * * 


oye iin 


to ue 
a} Va 
WHat 


we 
in toi! IY 


rites iy Mite 
CHEST ALIEY SL A 
ne tliat 


ie 
un A 
fist) 
vat Pap Ay 
iW e 


Ney A bait 
We Alas 
Lie Mi of 





LETTERS 


7. yor 
hoe re! 
nh 


Se beans Pl NANO 
mead tf Oia au 


7 x rf 5 
: 7 13 * 


BACT, 





To THE EpiTor oF THE EventnG Post 


August, 1904. 
Sir: 

Mr. Morley, in the first of his three volumes (p. 360), says 
of Gladstone while Colonial Secretary (1846-50): “He was 
never weary of protest against the fallacy of what was called 
‘preparing’ these new communities for freedom: teaching a 
colony, like an infant, by slow degrees to walk, first putting it 
into long clothes, then into short clothes. A governing class 
was reared up for the purposes which the colony ought to fulfil 
itself ; and at the climax of the evil, a great military expend- 
iture was maintained, which became a premium on war.” 

It is true that Gladstone had in mind colonies made up of 
home-born people transported over-sea, but his argument seems 
applicable, on general principles, to all communities that have 
given as good proof of intelligence as the educated Filipinos 
have done (judging from the committees sent over here). Does 
anybody suppose, for instance, that the Japanese would by this 
time have been as competent as they are now showing them- 
selves to be for self-government, had they formally requested 
the U. S., through Commodore Perry, kindly to take them 
under its tutelage and gradually to “prepare” them for the en- 
joyment of free institutions? They wisely chose to make their 
experiments in their own way, seeking with equal wisdom to 
gather light from all sources while doing so. The result is a 
people ripe for recognition as a “civilized” power. 

The capital argument of Anti-Imperialism bases itself on 
the probable reactionary effect of a “colonial system” on the 
internal life of the Republic. The American idea has not yet 
had time to work out its own salvation within home limits; and 
of the very highest importance is the bearing of Gladstone’s 
view of Colonial progress, on the future of our kindergarten 
in the Archipelago. 

413 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Aug. 11: 1904. 
Dear Miss Merepitu: 

- . - Our Church has met with a great loss in the death of 
Dr. Donald. He left a request, both verbal and written I 
believe, that I should officiate at the last rites and accordingly 
I left here for Boston last Monday night. Yesterday morning 
I was back again. Twice within the space of a month I have 
read the burial Lesson at the funeral of a dear friend. Bishop 
Huntington I had loved as I never loved any other minister 
of religion, and by Donald I had been loved as no other min- 
ister of religion ever loved me. The two men were very 
different and never understood each other, in fact rather dis- 
liked each other. It was my privilege to be in hearty sympa- 
thy with both of them. .. . 


P. S. Bishop Potter, I think, was quite within his rights 
in becoming, in his capacity of citizen, a stockholder in the 
model saloon; but he erred, in my judgment, in the matter of 
the now famous “Doxology,” which, in a way, committed the 
Church to a measure of which probably not one in twenty of 
our people approves. For myself I hold that the theory of 
the saloon being “the poor man’s club” is no better than what 
our friend Davies would call “wind-bag” philosophy. .. . 


Sept. 15, 1904. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

Thank you for the little book,—“Eternal Life” . 

The doctrine contained in it is identical with what I have 
held and taught ever since I entered the ministry forty years 
ago, “as is more particularly set forth” in The Peace of the 
Church Chapter on “Signs & Seals” and Four Key-words of 
Religion, Chapter on “Life.” One point however is new to me, 
and a very important point it is, namely, the connection be- 
tween St. John iv: 34 and St. John vi. For this I am very 
grateful. 

Do not believe all that you see in the papers. Bp. Doane’s 
Sunday afternoon “Reception” was no social function. It was 


414 


CHURCH UNITY 


simply giving an opportunity to the village people to come into 
personal contact with the Archbishop, which would scarcely 
have been possible on a working day. It was a thoroughly 
religious event beginning with a hymn and ending with the 
Doxology. His Grace the Primate is “a dear,”—as women 
say. I have had one long talk with him and several short ones, 
and in all of these we found ourselves in perfect accord, which, 
naturally, was to me gratifying. His sermon in little St. 
Mary’s last Sunday was perfection in its way. The text 
(Rom. xiv: 7) was made the basis of some most timely and sug- 
gestive thoughts about historic continuity, and all that it means 
in the spiritual life of the race. He leaves us to-morrow for 
Bar Harbor, having won all hearts by his evident graciousness 
and kindliness. .. . 


To Bisuorp SATTERLEE 


September 26, 1904. 
My Dear BisHor: 

I have just been reading in the morning papers their reports 
of your wonderful service at the Peace Cross yesterday, and I 
am sending this line, which requires no acknowledgment, simply 
for the purpose of congratulating you on the success of your 
undertaking, and of expressing the hope that you have not 
been overtaxed in connection with it. You have laid all the 
friends of Church Unity under a lasting obligation by what 
you have done in the way of symbolizing it at Washing- 
ton. ... 


To Miss Ipa Mason 


October 26, 1904. 
My Dear Miss Ina: 

The reply to Archbishop Gibbons’ Faith of our Fathers was 
written by a Dr. Stearns of Maryland, and bears the rude title 
The Faith of our Forefathers. I regret to say that I have not 
a copy. I am sending you, however, three little books, one or 
other of which may meet the needs of your friend. England 

A415 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


versus Rome is an admirable compendium of the differences 
between the Roman and the Anglican positions, but has the dis- 
advantage of having been written before Rome’s last change 
of base in 1870. As far as it goes, it is very satisfactory. 

Let me add, however, that I do not think that either logic 
or historical evidence can be counted upon to weigh very much 
with any one whose face is fairly set Romewards. With nine 
out of ten, it is a matter not so much of reason as of feeling. 
Better than any books in your friend’s case would be the ex- 
perience of those who have tried the thing, and found how 
widely the reality differs from the dream. I wish your friend 
could have overheard conversations that I have lately had with 
two intelligent young men of serious mind and purpose, who 
recently left a monastery in Pennsylvania and came to New 
York to seek their fortunes, rather than live any longer under 
a system the yoke of which had become to them intolerable. 
One of them was a native born American, who had gone over 
to Rome from our own communion; the other, an Irish- 
American, born and bred in the Roman Church. 

The three principal attractions that Rome offers are its 
doctrine of authority in the realms of thought and conduct; 
its doctrine of personal priestly absolution; its doctrine of the 
Real Presence on the altar of the veritable Christ. Some na- 
tures feel the influence of one of the three magnets more than 
that of the other two; but there are cases in which all three 
combine in drawing power. If I knew on which line your 
friend’s mind was moving, I could advise more intelligently. 
As it is, I can but hope that the books which I am sending you 
may be of some slight help towards the ascertainment of the 
truth. 


October 28, 1904. 
My Dear Sir: 

The question which you raise in connection with the “Mass” 
advertised at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin is a large and 
difficult one. I quite agree with you as to the bad taste and 
inaccuracy shown in calling what our Prayer Book names 


416 


CHURCH UNITY 


“The Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion” the Mass; but so 
long as the language of the liturgy is employed without addi- 
tion or subtraction in the administration thereof, I do not see 
how any ground of canonical action can be found against peo- 
ple who choose to insert in the newspapers such advertisements 
as the one to which you refer. 

The following words from a recent volume of visitation 
charges by the late Bishop of Oxford, one of the wisest and 
most learned bishops of our time, seem to hit the nail on the 
head. They have just fallen under my eye in The Spectator 
of the sixteenth instant. ‘The word Mass signifies that form 
of celebration which is proper to the Roman or unreformed 
Church of the West. I would forbid the employment of the 
term absolutely, were I not apprehensive that those who are so 
foolish as to use it would not be wise enough to obey my 
injunction.” 

I should deprecate quitting the Church because of its allow- 
ing wide divergence of opinion with respect to a subject not 
so much as touched upon in the Apostles’ Creed. This is one 
of the points upon which Christians will have to learn to agree 
to differ, if we are ever to have a Church Unity that amounts 
to anything ;—at least, so it strikes me. 


To rue Rev. Tueopore T. Muncer, D.D. 


October 28, 1904. 
Dear Mr. Muncer: 

Proud indeed am I, and grateful, to have been made the re- 
cipient of an “author’s copy” of your delightful Essays for 
the Day. I am reading it with close attention. Thank you 
for doing justice to Tennyson as against the other Nineteenth 
Century poets whom it is the fashion just now to exalt above 
him. I cannot agree, however, that there is more theology to 
be learned from the Idyls than from In Memoriam. ‘This last 
I regard almost as an addendum to Holy Scripture, so deep 
has been my indebtedness to it through the fifty years last past. 

May your good words have the circulation which they 
deserve! 7 


ALT 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 
1904. 





Dear 

I am ever so glad to know that Grace Church is in any 
measure a help to you. Remember that it is open all the time, 
and now and then go in there, of a week-day, and find a quiet 
corner, and even if you do not feel like praying, just sit and 
think, for a few moments, of the blessed truths for which the 
building stands as pledge and symbol,—the goodness of God, 
the beauty of holiness, the love of Christ, the shortness of the 
time we have to wait, the certainty of heaven at last. 

As to books I am rather at a loss how to advise you, for 
your interest in Robertson is my only clue to the bent of your 
mind, I think you told me that you did not care much for 
poetry. If you did, I should urge Wordsworth upon you, 
and perhaps Keble, on the score of the soothing element in their 
verse. There are a good many biographies that might help to 
take you out of yourself into the lives of others, and if you 
think that you would like to follow this line I could easily 
suggest a list, and would gladly lend you volumes out of my 
own library. I am deeply persuaded, however, that it will 
only be by your becoming interested in some form of active 
helpfulness that you will effect the escape from self which is 
the secret of peace. For anything of this sort you are not 
yet strong enough, you say. But by and by you may be, 
and although your life must always be a shadowed one, it need 
not for that reason be an unhappy one. You have great capa- 
cities for usefulness, and the very fact that you know so 
thoroughly what sorrow is, and what it means to suffer, ought 
of itself to move you to try to be of some comfort to others. 
Determine that you will not let your grief spoil your life. 


December 29, 1904. 
Dear Miss Merepitu: 

- . . Your comments on Tract No. XCI. will be welcome. 
It was well received by the Club at the reading, but the members 
seemed to think that I greatly exaggerated the importance of 
the barrier which the Articles form to the approach of intel- 

418 


CHURCH UNITY 


lectual young men to our ministry. One of the examining 
chaplains of the Diocese bore witness that he had never known 
of a case of a young man’s being kept back from Holy Orders 
by the Articles. On the other hand, I recall somewhat vividly 
my own experience under Bishop Eastburn, who kept me back 
six months from ordination, because of a scruple I had ex- 
pressed with regard to a single statement in one of the Articles. 
This incident may very naturally have tended to bias my 
judgment. ... 


To tHe Rr. Rev. Henry C. Porter, D.D. 


January 10, 1905. 
My Dear BisHor: 

The Rev. Dr. called on me this afternoon to ascertain 
on what grounds IJ had advised against his being retained on 
the Cathedral staff. I took the opportunity to explain to 
him my view of the principles upon which the chapter should 
be organized, and it seems proper that, having done so, I should 
repeat to you substantially what I said to him. I feel the less 
diffidence about doing this for the reason that I have, for the 
last sixteen or seventeen years, devoted myself pretty assidu- 
ously to endeavouring to carry out what I understood to be 
your wishes in the matter of the Cathedral, both with respect 
to its capitular organization and its visible structure. 

My own conception of the true theory of the American Ca- 
thedral, and one which I had supposed was fully shared by you 
is this,—that the Cathedral should find in the Bishop its head 
and in the Diocese, taken as a whole, its constituency. For 
the carrying out of this latter feature, it would seem to be 
highly desirable that the organization should be kept in closest 
possible touch with the parochial system; not in the sense of its 
being itself parochial, for that would be fatal, but in the sense 
of having the good will rather than the jealousy of the parish. 
Most American cathedrals have antagonized the parishes by 
becoming modified parish churches themselves; but this danger 
you have thoroughly guarded against by preventing the estab- 

419 





WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


lishment of any pastoral relation between the officials of the 
Cathedral and the people attending the services. 

In the organization of the chapter, however, I cannot help 
thinking that you have missed, or are in danger of missing a 
great opportunity to codrdinate the Cathedral and parochial 
systems. Had the chance put it in my way, I should have 
urged you strongly to consider the wisdom of appointing to 
the principal canonries the rectors of leading Churches, as, for 
instance, Dr. Leighton Parks, Dr. Rainsford, Dr. Grosvenor, 
Dr. Vibbert, etc., etc. You have done this in the case of Dr. 
Peters, and I fancy with universal approval; but no other one 
of the appointees, if I remember rightly, represents an impor- 
tant parish. 

The advantages of the method which I am describing are, 
first, that upon which I have already dwelt, namely, the knit- 
ting of the interests of the great parishes to the Cathedral by 
having their recognized heads associated in the management; 
secondly, you secure cathedral officers of high grade without 
having to pay them anything, which at the present stage of 
our progress is desirable; and in the third place, you convert 
men who possibly might be critics of the Cathedral into sup- 
porters of it... 

I have opened my mind very freely, my dear Bishop; but I 
trust that my record as a Cathedral worker is sufficiently good 
to clear me from the charge of presumption in submitting these 
thoughts to you... . 


To tue Rev. J. P. Luwyp 


January 19, 1905. 
My Dear Mr. Liwyp: 

Your Christmas letter was, I assure you, very warmly appre- 
ciated. Nothing could be more gratifying than to be told in 
such evidently honest tones that one has been of real help to a 
brother clergyman, in the midst of the mental and spiritual 
turmoil of these strange days. 

Curiously enough, The Living Church, which for many years, 
during the period of Prayer Book Revision, persistently sneered 

420 


CHURCH UNITY 


at me and all my works, was the only one of the Church jour- 
nals to print Suter’s address in full. This, no doubt, was due 
to a change in the editorship; but, all the same, it came to me 
very pleasantly as a surprise. | 

. . . 1 think you Western men underrate the value which we 
of the East set upon your labors. Had the meeting of the 
General Convention in San Francisco produced no other result, 
it certainly had the effect of making those of us who attended 
keenly aware of the splendid possibilities of the Pacific Slope. 
For myself, I found my imagination kindled in a wonderful way 
at the thought of what California and Oregon and Washington 
were likely in the far future to effect in influencing China and 
Japan, and I have more than once referred to it in public. 
You are privileged to be among the pioneers in so great a 
Wolk, 


To Grorce C. Cuark, Esa. 


January 21, 1905. 
My Dear GEorGE: 

It is a great satisfaction to me that the members of the 
Vestry are so unanimous in the matter of the purchase of the 
Bakery property. The general opinion of the parishioners 
will, I think, bear them out. I cannot help regretting, how- 
ever, that the newspapers should be giving currency to the 
statement that we intend putting up a parish house on the 
premises. 

As Rector of the Church, I cannot honestly say that I had 
any such thought in my mind. I should have considered it 
dishonorable to have brought the matter up as I did, if a con- 
cealed purpose was lying back of what I proposed. We have, 
I think, all the facilities that Grace Church requires for doing 
its work. We could use one or two more rooms to advantage, 
but not a building. Do you think that it would be wise of me 
to state this view of the matter either to the congregation, or 
through the Year Book, now about to be published? 

I am consulting you rather than any one else because from 
the beginning you have shown such a deep interest in the main 


421 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


proposition. Grace Church has stood by me so handsomely in 
this whole matter of increasing our facilities, that I don’t want 
the people to think that I was in any degree insincere in telling 
them that they had given me all that I needed or desired. 


To Evcene Stock, Ese. 


January 23, 1905. 
My Dear Mr. Stock: 

It was a great pleasure to hear from you, and I wish there 
were some chance of my being able to avail myself of your 
cordial invitation; but the older I grow, the less attractive the 
Atlantic looks to me, and though I love England, I love not 
that “inviolate sea” which sunders us. 

I found your little handbook exceedingly helpful the other 
day in preparing a sermon on Foreign Missions, and quoted one 
of your excerpts with effect. I wonder if you ever heard my 
text preached from. It was this: “I have put my words in 
thy mouth, and have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, 
that I may plant the heavens.” (Isaiah 51;16) My exegesis 
of the phrase was this: that the prophet got a vision of the 
new astronomy, and conceived for a moment of the stars and 
planets not as mere spangles fastened to a solid firmament, but 
as possible homes for unborn races. Israel was made the cus- 
todian of the truth (“I put thy words in thy mouth”) and also 
granted special protection (‘and have covered thee in the 
shadow of mine hand”) as the first attempt in an evolution des- 
tined ultimately “to plant the heavens,” i. e., people the universe 
through survival of the fittest. The transcendental treatment 
of the text I grant, and yet not without a certain uplift in 
virtue of the largeness of the vision. We Yankees are idealists 
and are tolerant of such overflowings of optimism, in spite of 
all the hard things you Britishers have to say against our 
sordid materialism and love of dollars. 

I think you knew dear Dr. Donald, Rector of Trinity Church, 
Boston, when you were over here. Poor fellow! He died, 
after a very painful illness, last Summer, and it fell to me to 
pronounce his eulogy. I shall be sending you a copy shortly. 

422 


CHURCH UNITY 


The archbishop’s visit was a magnificent success. He made 
hosts of friends and no enemies. Hereford and Ripon also 
made a fine impression, each in his own way, the ways being 
very different... . 


To tue Rev. Ranpotpw H. McKim, D.D. 


January 25, 1905. 
My Drar McKim: 

You are quite right in holding that there is no more impor- 
tant subject now before us than the question of the teaching 
of Christian ethics in the public schools. Last year I took 
part in some very interesting conferences on this subject, held 
at the house of Mr. George Zabriskie, and attended by repre- 
sentatives of both Church and Synagogue, including the 
Roman Catholics. Dr. Briggs was the active mover in the 
matter, but others were almost as energetic as he in urging 
the importance of having something done to stem the current of 
crime in this country. The proceedings were confidential, and 
I think that the movement, which you say was described in The 
Forum of last June, must have been something carried on under 
other auspices. I am quite sure that nothing has been done 
in a legislative way looking to the end in view. 

On the contrary, the secularists are now urging strenuously, 
and with the support, I am sorry to say, of some of our clergy, 
the opening of the public schools on Sundays for lectures; 
which means, of course, a Benthamite view of the matter. 
What the conferees at Mr. Zabriskie’s house wanted, was that 
the teaching of Theistic ethics (by which is meant such pabu- 
lum as is represented by the answers to the questions ‘What 
is thy Duty towards God?” and “What is thy Duty towards 
thy Neighbour?” in the Church Catechism) should be insisted 
upon. 

The trouble with these movements in New York is that we 
men are so awfully busy in our various lines, that it is almost 
impossible to keep a codperative movement from falling of its 
own weight and cumbering the ground. Briggs went off to 
Europe for a prolonged stay, and I have heard nothing of the 

423 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


conference since his departure. Meanwhile, however, seeing 
in The Guardian mention of a society in England, having for 
its object moral instruction in the schools, I sent over for a 
supply of their literature, and have received the same by post. 
I have not yet had an opportunity to give this material any 
examination, but hope to do so soon... . 


To THE Rey. GERALD STANLEY LEE 


February 9, 1905. 
Dear Sir: | 

You have said, in my humble judgment, by far the wisest, 
profoundest, and most eloquent word for cathedrals that has 
yet been spoken on this side of the Atlantic. It would be un- 
pardonable in me, a stranger, thus to praise you, as it were 
to your face, but for the accident of my being the chairman of 
the building committee which is just now trying its hand at a 
cathedral on an acclivity far enough away from, and above, 
our city sky-scrapers to make their competition hopeless. We 
may not be able, all at once, to measure up to the largeness 
of your conception of what the twentieth century cathedral 
ought to be; but we shall cry 

Meanwhile, I shall ask my friend Mabie for authority to 
reprint your glowing and suggestive words. 

I trust you will interpose no bar. I know of nothing in 
recent cathedral literature that would make so efficacious a 
tract. 


February 24, 1905. 
My Dear Mr. 
It is with great reluctance that I venture to give you counsel 
of a sort which I am morally certain will prove unwelcome; — 
but candour and a sincere desire for your welfare compel me 
to say what I really think. Were I to do otherwise, I should 
be no true friend. 
Let me then frankly say that, in my judgment, the time is 
not ripe, if it ever will be, for organizing a Unity movement 
on the lines which you propose. I do not mean by this to inti- 


424 





CHURCH UNITY 


mate that the women of the various Christian denominations 
cannot mightily help a movement towards Unity, for their 
power in that direction is undeniably immense. I cannot see, 
however, that grouping these women in little clusters of seven 
is likely to accomplish anything; for when you have got your 
sevens and your seventy times seven, what can you give them 
to do? They will not be particularly well qualified to grapple 
with the hard questions of ecclesiology which will have to be 
dealt with as the movement broadens and deepens. Neither is 
there any practical method of bringing their affectional pow- 
ers to bear upon the inert mass of indifference and hostility 
which must be met and conquered. You tell me they can pray. 
Yes, undoubtedly, but there is no special need of organization 
for this purpose. Their intercessions can rise from the places 
where prayer is “wont to be made” as effectively as from any 
brand new sanctuary. 

The truth is, my dear friend, Church Unity is not coming 
about ina hurry. In the course of the forty years that I have 
been giving to the study of the subject, I have seen more than 
one and more than two organizations of the sort you are con- 
templating come to naught. There is no such thing as ‘‘rush- 
ing” the work. The late Mr. Theodore Seward’s League of 
Christian Unity was very similar in form and method to the 
society which you propose; but it lapsed before it was many 
months old for sheer lack of something definite to do. 

May I suggest, without seeming to intrude into another 
man’s affairs, kindly suggest that you owe a certain duty to 
wife and child which is antecedent to any supposed call to a 
crusade in the prosecution of which their interests would have 
to be forgotten. Would it not be wiser to seek a pastoral 
charge in which you could earn enough to maintain your fam- 
ily, and meanwhile, by preaching and teaching, do your utmost 
to promote the cause which you and I, both of us, have at heart. 
I am quite aware that my advice may seem to you cowardly 
and not sufficiently tinged with faith in the promises of God; 
but I am unable to see the thing otherwise. Should you decide 
to persist in your enterprise, I would suggest that your wisest 


425 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


course would be to seek to ally yourself with the Federation 
of Churches, and persuade the officers of that organization to 
favour the forming of a “woman’s auxiliary.” The Federa- 
tion has, I think, at present no such annex, but missionary and 
temperance movements have been greatly helped by that device. 


To THE Rev. Puitie M. Kerrince 


March 6, 1905. 
My Dear Kerrince: 

Here in New York, my experience of the annual parish meet- 
ing is very similar to yours. It is a phenomenon very difficult 
to explain. Sometimes I have thought that it was partly reac- 
tion from the intensified life of Holy Week, and sometimes I 
have attributed it to a feeling, on the part of the male parish- 
ioners in general, that the Vestry was a sort of close corpora- 
tion upon which they did not care to intrude. In Worcester, it 
was different. ‘There we used to have an evening meeting, 
regularly organized, with speeches from men not in the Vestry, 
and questions of interest to the parishioners generally were 
openly discussed. I think it was our congregational environ- 
ment which made this possible. The truth is, we are still far 
too clerical a Church, notwithstanding the envious way in 
which our Anglican brethren speak of the wonderful activity of 
the American Layman. . . 


To tHE Rev. Atrorp A. Butuer, D.D. 


March 9, 1905. 
Dear Dr. Butter: 

I have tarried too long in acknowledging your exceedingly 
kind note written me in connection with Suter’s “Apprecia- 
tion,” and possibly you have by this time left San Remo; but 
I’write at a venture, letting my tardy acknowledgment take its 
chance. It was as great a surprise to me as to you, perhaps 
even a greater, to see the thing printed in the columns of The 
Living Church, and I thought it very much to the credit of 
that journal that it was willing, after so many years, to make 
what was practically a retraction. 


426 


CHURCH UNITY 


I am sorry to infer from your being in Italy at this busiest 
time of the year that your friends must be in some anxiety about 
your health. Save for that, you are to be envied, for nowhere 
on the earth’s surface can a cultivated mind find more to de- 
light in than in Italy. I have just been reading the Life of 
Bishop Creighton, in which his fondness for the country is 
much emphasized. That is where the English have an advan- 
tage of us; they can so easily run over to any part of the con- 
tinent that attracts them; whereas we have to make long jour- 
nies to our resting places, and when we get to them find no 
historical associations awaiting us. The reply of the old 
woman who returned East, after having been sent West by one 
of our Emigration Societies, “Folks is more social than 
stumps,” has a larger application, I think, than it bore in the 
first instance. Nature pure and simple is all very well, but it 
gains vastly by its association with human nature... . 


To Mrs. J. P. Cooxr 


Grace Church Rectory, March 13, 1905. 
My Dear Mary: 

. . . It seems a long time since I have heard from you,—a 
form of complaint which you have often, I am sorry to say, 
brought against me with justice, while I have seldom had op- 
portunity to retort; but now is my chance. . . . Madge still 
tarries at Jaffrey, and the Rectory seems very vacant. Miriam 
and I lunched with the young people in Madison Square yes- 
terday, and they reciprocated by dining with us at night. 

An encouraging interest is shown in the services which we 
began on Ash Wednesday; and if it is maintained until the end, 
we shall all feel very thankful; but I notice that Lent is apt to 
sag a little towards the middle, gathering strength with Holy 
Week. 

. . - The Donald memorial sermon is now in the press, and 
will probably be out next week. They have been rather slow 
about it; but I ought not to be the one to complain, as some 
of the tardiness has been due to suggestions of my own, as for 


427 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


example that there should be a picture of Donald for frontis- 
piece. The Rector-elect of Trinity Church is coming to see me 
to-morrow. I do not think it can be safely taken for granted 
that he will accept the call... . 


To CievetanD Morrert, Ese. 


March 16, 1905. 
My Dear Mr. Morrett: 

Ever since the appearance, in the early part of the Eigh- 
teenth Century, of Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees or Prwate 
Vices Public Benefits, the question which you discuss in your 
forthcoming article has been often in debate. In fact, only 
week before last there was a paper in the London Spectator, 
which I dare say you may have read, entitled Luxury and 
Riches, bearing upon the same point. The writer in the Spec- 
tator lays far less stress than you do upon the disastrous effect 
on the poor of vicious self-indulgence on the part of individuals 
among the rich. 

He is evidently of the opinion that if all the money extrava- 
gantly expended upon food and clothing in England or in 
America were to be massed in one great fund and then dis- 
tributed among the poor, the fractional portion accruing to 
each individual of the latter class would be too trifling to be 
taken into account. 

Mallock, in his books on the industrial problem, gives figures 
in proof of this conclusion, and, as I remember them, very con- 
vincing ones. At the same time, I am of opinion that the oc- 
casional scoring of foolish men and silly women for their 
spendthrift ways, will do good. The fact that people have 
money to burn is no good reason for burning it. 

The subject is such a large one that it is impossible for an 
overworked parson to enter into a full discussion of it. I 
note, however, one or two points upon which I think your pa- 
per open to criticism. You seem to have only two remedies to 
propose for the existing evil condition,—first, the limitation 
by law of the amount which any one man should be permitted 


428 


CHURCH UNITY 


to accumulate, and secondly, almsgiving on a large scale, deny- 
ing oneself a sable coat in order to supply five hundred little 
Eastside boys with woolen ones. I believe the former of these 
two expedients to be bad economics and the latter, bad civics. 
Instead of denouncing the makers of large fortunes, I think 
we ought to be grateful to them for using their talent for the 
creation of great reservoirs of capital, without which progress 
would be impossible. On this point, see Mallock’s Aristocracy 
and Evolution, passim. The argument against a general “di- 
vide,” your other way out of it, may be found in the history of 
the downfall of the Roman republic. 

I am afraid you will think me very hard-hearted for bringing 
up these criticisms in this form; but I assure you that no man 
can have lived as I have lived for twenty years, with the “Bread 
Line” formed on the curbstone in front of his house every night, 
without having the problem of poverty pressed in upon his 
heart and conscience very forcibly. Moreover, I believe that 
a large proportion of the rich men and women of New York 
would gladly surrender every cent they own, if they were con- 
vinced that by doing so they could solve this terrible problem, 
which never weighed more heavily upon the world’s heart than 
it does to-day. 

The truth is that inequalities as to temporal conditions 
spring out of inequalities of natural endowment, for which it is 
false to say that the rich as a class are responsible. There is 
in this country bread enough and to spare; the real question 
is a question of distribution, and the proper law of distribution, 
pace the socialists, has not yet been discovered. By slow and 
painful steps we are working our way towards such discovery, 
and a few fools in sable coats must not be allowed to block our 
progress, and will not be. The trouble is, the poor, or many 
of them, imagine that the rich know the true secret of distribu- 
tion and will not tell; but such is not the fact, the rich are as 
much puzzled as the poor. It is only because of its having a 
tendency to encourage this misconception, that your paper is 
at all harmful. The general tendency of what you have writ- 
ten is undoubtedly for good. 


429 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To tHe Rev. Donatp Sact Mackay, D.D. 


April 6, 1905. 
My Dear Dr. Mackay: 

We have all of us suffered many things from reporters and 
know how to make allowances for their excesses. I read the 
fancy sketch of your sermon in T’he Sun with much interest, and 
was vastly more amused than annoyed by your alleged charac- 
terization of the language of the Second of the Thirty-nine Ar- 
ticles. I suspect that there are a good many of our High- 
Churchmen who would cheerfully apply the objectionable epi- 
thet imputed to you to many more of the Thirty-nine. 

What seriously interested me in your discourse as reported 
was what appeared to be a failure on your part to recognize 
the very sharp distinction, universally acknowledged among 
Episcopalians, between the Articles and the Catholic Creeds. 
To the chance reader of the Prayer Book, it might well appear 
as if the two documents rested upon the same footing, and 
anybody criticizing us from without would, I think, be entirely 
justified in supposing all of our doctrinal standards to be 
possessed of equal authority. Such, however, is far from being 
the fact. The Articles have been interpreted in so many dif- 
ferent ways, and in the interest of so many schools of thought, 
that they are now seen to be of little value as doctrinal tests, 
whereas any distinct contravention by an individual clergyman 
of an article of the Creed would at once be challenged, and 
probably by judicial process. 

At a gathering of Episcopal clergymen the other day, it fell 
to me to read a paper on the Articles. In it I took the ground 
that, in view of the multiplicity of constructions put upon them, 
it would be wise to relegate the Articles to a place in the Angli- 
can archives, omitting them wholly from the Book of Common 
Prayer, in which, even now, they stand at the jumping-off 
place. To my surprise, I found the brethren almost unanimous 
in the opinion that the desuetude into which the Articles had 
fallen was so complete, as well as innocuous, that it was scarcely 
worth while to disturb it. My contention that the tender con- 
sciences of young men seeking Holy Orders ought to be pro- 


430 


CHURCH UNITY 


tected by the removal of so elaborate a formulary, containing 
many hundreds of propositions, was, to my great surprise, met 
by the statement from two men, who had served as examining 
chaplains, that they had never met with an instance where a 
grievance of this sort had been alleged. 

I am explaining our position thus fully, my dear Dr. Mackay, 
because of the ardent hope I entertain, and which I doubt not 
you share with me, that the day may be near at hand when all 
of the prolix confessions which the various denominations have 
inherited from the sixteenth century strifes, may quietly drop 
off, leaving all of us standing together on the firm bed-rock of 
the historic faith as objectively stated in the Creeds. .. . 


Monday Morning, 1905. 
Dear Miss Brace: 

Thank you for letting me know that you found my words 
helpful. The main thought in the sermon was one which did 
not come to me until I had begun to write, and that perhaps 
is the reason why it also seemed fresh to you. 

The preacher shoots his arrows at random. It has to be so. 
When one of them happens to hit, it makes up for many futile 
shots. 


To tHE Rev. Wriiwuam WILKInson 


April 11, 1905. 
My Dear Mr. WIxxrnson: 

What you say about the Study of the Te Deum which has 
been inserted into recent editions of my little History of the 
Prayer Book is especially gratifying to me, for the reason that 
personally I care more for the essay in question than for any 
other thing of the sort I ever wrote. It has not, so far as I 
know, had any very general recognition; but possibly a chance 
reader here and there has found in it what you seem to have 
found. I have been thinking a little of adding similar studies, 
though on a smaller scale, of the three Gospel Hymns, and 
have the material in hand for one of them. . 


431 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Grace Church Rectory, April 11, 1905. 
My Dear BisHop Hatt: 

I think it quite wonderful that you should have found time, 
not to say strength, immediately after a serious illness, to 
write me so kindly about the Donald Memorial Sermon. The 
Boston people never grew, I think, quite to understand Donald. 
He scared them with his paradoxes, and rubbed their fur the 
wrong way; but he was as true as steel, alike to his convictions 
and to his friends. I have just been reading, as I suppose 
you have, the Life of Bishop Creighton. In some points, espe- 
cially this very matter of the love of paradox, the two men 
were not unlike. 

It may please you to know that we remembered you in our 
prayers at Grace Church, in your hour of need. As one of 
the great company of your friends, I rejoice that the request 
was not made known in vain. .. . 


P. S. It delights me to have you refer in such terms to the 
Collect 1 which ought to have got into the Prayer Book at the 
Revision, but failed to do so. I was told, at the time, that the 
failure was due to a criticism of some of your erudite brethren 
of the House of Bishops, to the effect that the prayer savored 
of the Kenotic theory. This was too much for me. Shall I 
shock you if I say that the criticism suggested, to my mind, 
the Kenotic condition of the critics’ heads? 


WR. HH. 


To THe Rey. ALExANDER Mann, D.D. 


April 12, 1905. 
My Dear Dr. Mann: 

Many thanks for your urgent invitation; but two impending 
weddings make it impossible for me to leave New York on the 
twenty-seventh. 

1 Almighty God, whose most dear Son went not up to joy, but first he 
suffered pain, and entered not into glory before he was crucified; Merci- 
fully grant that we, walking in the way of the cross, may find it none 


other than the way of life and peace; through the same Jesus Christ our 
Lord. Amen. . 


A432 


CHURCH UNITY 


I had already heard with gratification, before receiving your 
letter, that you had accepted the call to Trinity Church. My 
best wishes and hopes will follow you thither, and my prayers. 
The Bostonians rightly understood are a good sort. Do not 
be in a hurry to decide that you cannot love them. Doubtless 
some of them will puzzle you at first, and some of them all the 
time; but there is ever so much good material left in the old 
historic town, and, if you are content to “go slow” at first, you 
will be able ultimately to mould no little of it to your mind. 

Pardon the sententiousness of this counsel; but as a Yankee 
of the Yankees, I may venture to offer it without presumption. 


To tHe Rey. J. B. Remensnypver, D.D. 


April 13, 1905. 
My Dear Dr. RemMEensnypveEr: 

If I had realized how long it would be before I should be able 
to read the book you were kind enough to send me, I should 
have written at once to say that I had received it, and promis- 
ing a fuller acknowledgment later on. It has never seemed to 
me a particularly courteous thing to say “Thank you” for an 
author’s copy immediately upon its arrival. Appreciation 
ought to show itself after perusal rather than before. 

I have now, however, carefully studied The Atonement and 
Modern Thought, and can thank you intelligently for the good 
I have gathered from it. It has been excellent reading for 
Lent and a wholesome preparation for Good Friday. But I 
am afraid that if I were to write out my confession of faith 
in full, you would think that I also was more or less tainted 
with “modern thought.” I share your estimate of the value 
of the Cross; but I am contented with far fewer words about 
it than would probably satisfy you and your brother theolo- 
gians of the Lutheran Communion. For me the words of the 
Nicene Creed suffice, “Who for us men and for our salvation 
came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost 
of the Virgin Mary, And was made man: And was crucified 
also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered.” That little 
preposition for, thrice occurring in the sentence I have quoted, 


433 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


conveys all the “theory” of Atonement that I find necessary 
for my peace of mind. When I am asked to believe further 
that Christ bore the “penalty” of our sins, I am fain to reply 
that “‘penalty” seems to me the correlative of guilt, and that, 
since Christ is the alone Sinless One, I cannot, without upset- 
ting all my moral notions, acquiesce in the statement that He 
bore the “penalty” of others’ guilt. That He was wounded 
for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities, and that 
He bore the sins of many, are statements which have ever sat- 
isfied the devout soul sorrowing over the world’s sin and its 
own; and I cannot see that they carry with them any necessary 
suggestion of the transfer of “penalty.” The nature miracles 
of the Gospel do not disturb my faith; but when I am asked to 
accept, under the name of a “moral miracle,” a departure from 
the principle (so clearly enunciated on page 187) “that guilt 
cannot be transferred to another,” I demur. Neither can I 
quite agree with you in holding Anselm’s theory of the Atone- 
ment to have been the first of theories. Unless I have misread 
the history of doctrine, the theory of the earlier theologians, 
certainly of many of them, if not most of them, was that the 
“ransom” was paid to Satan. I fancy there are many, espe- 
cially in heathen lands, to whom this naive theory would appeal 
to-day more persuasively than Anselm’s analysis of the divine 
attributes. 

Perhaps it is my Anglican training which inclines me always 
to think of the doctrine of the Incarnation as inclusive of the 
doctrine of the Atonement. You yourself, in a few sentences 
on page 167, seem for the moment to concede this to be the 
fact. Doubtless the large predominance given to the suffer- 
ings of the Saviour in the closing chapters of all four of the 
Gospels compels us to see in the Cross the acme of Incarna- 
tion ; but this does not exclude the belief that by Christ’s “Holy 
Nativity” as well as by his “Cross and Passion” God and Man 
are at-one. 

Do not infer, my dear Dr. Remensnyder, from my thus 
emphasizing the few points of difference, that I have failed to 
rate at its true value the large amount of positive statement in 


434 


CHURCH UNITY 


your book with which I have found myself in cordial agree- 
ment. ... 


To Mrs. J. P. Cooxe 


Grace Church Rectory, New York, 
April 21st, 1905. 
My Dear Mary: 

Since, to my great regret, you cannot be with us for Easter, 
I am squeezing out a few moments from this intensely busy 
week, in which to send you a word of greeting. Since Sunday 
morning, I have been in the pulpit eight times; and you can 
imagine that the strain has been somewhat severe. One more 
address and one more sermon await me. I have been very much 
sustained by the evidence of interest in the services, which have 
been exceedingly well attended. ... 

You would have thought that I was getting ritualistic in my 
old age, if you could have seen Grace Church this morning 
with a background of purple velvet covering the whole central 
mosaic behind the memorial cross, and an arrangement of elec- 
tric lights by which the field was strikingly illuminated. I 
have, however, such an anti-ritualistic reputation that I am 
quite safe from hostile criticism. 

Did I write you that the Deaconess School has had an addi- 
tional house given to it? This is a great lift, for besides giv- 
ing us accommodations for an increased number of pupils, it 
adds, in a way, to the endowment of the School, for when we 
build and move into our permanent building on the cathedral 
grounds, we can utilize these East Twelfth Street houses as 
sources of income. 

Enclosed is one of the Easter circulars, which will show you 
that we keep getting into debt as well as getting out of it. 

Please remember me kindly to Miss Linton. I wished to-day 
that I had some of her brandy and glycerine with which to 
clear my throat before going into the pulpit. Unfortunately, 
I have forgotten the formula. Perhaps she will refresh my 
memory. 


435 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To tHE Rev. Canon Doveuas, D.D. 


May 17, 1905. 
My Dear Canon Dovctas: 

If I had known how long it would be before I should be able 
to give thorough examination to the scheme set forth in your 
letter of April twenty-second, I should have written immedi- 
ately upon the receipt of your communication, acknowledging 
it and reserving my opinion for a time. 

As it is, I beg you will pardon my long silence. 

Many of the special suggestions contained in the latter part 
of your letter strike me favourably, and of course all of what 
you have to say, whether it strikes me favourably or not, will 
be submitted to the Committee charged with the revision of 
the Constitution and Statutes. I may as well say frankly, 
however, that I am not at all in sympathy with the radical 
change which you propose with reference to the Great Chapter. 
However great the care bestowed upon the preparation of the 
organic law for the Washington Cathedral (a copy of which, 
by the way, the Committee will be very glad to receive), I may 
perhaps be pardoned for suggesting that an equal amount of 
deliberate study was spent upon the existing Constitution and 
Statutes of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Moreover, 
every paragraph of the existing Constitution and Statutes was 
carefully discussed by the duly convened Board of Trustees at 
more than one session before final adoption. The “loose” or- 
ganization of the Great Chapter was intentional, as that body 
was meant to be representative of the Diocese rather in an 
illustrative than in a potential way. These adjectives, I 
trust, explain themselves. The real power as respects financé 
was intended to reside in the Board of Trustees, where it was 
originally placed, and the conduct of worship and of mission- 
ary work in the Chapter. These two bodies are intended to be 
coordinate, and such a merger as you propose would be de- 
structive of the very idea itself upon which the whole scheme 
is arranged. 

Your plan may be very much better than mine, and, if found 
to be so, will, I trust, replace mine; but you can scarcely expect 


436 


CHURCH UNITY 


me to welcome with enthusiasm propositions which do not so 
much modify as destroy the aim which, as the framer of these 
documents, I distinctly had in mind. 


May 17, 1905. 
My Dear Sir: 

Thank you for taking the trouble to write me at such length 
with respect to a subject of so grave importance. I suppose 
your communication grew out of your having seen an inter- 
view in one of the morning papers in which language was 
attributed to me that I never used. 

While I do not regard the Unity of the Church as an end 
likely to be attained in our time, I am of opinion that to no 
loftier object is it possible for prayer and effort to be devoted. 
How the Unity is to be brought to pass, no man knows; but 
until it is brought to pass, the Day of Pentecost can hardly 
be said to have “fully come.” 

The verses from the Minor Prophets, to which you call my 
attention in the opening sentences of your letter, I count 
among the predictions which will be understood when they 
shall have been fulfilled, a remark which would have held good 
of the prophecies of the Incarnation, before that event in the 
spiritual history of the world took place. 


May 22, 1905. 
Dear Mapam: 

No one with a heart in him could read your letter without 
feeling the pathos of it. Nevertheless, I stand by the declara- 
tion quoted by Mr. Moffett, impossible and incredible though it 
seems to you. 

The possessors of great wealth are by no means all of them 
coldly indifferent to the sufferings of their kind. Some of them 
are that, but by no means all. To people of only ordinary 
good breeding, not to say refinement, such instances of extrav- 
agance as Mr. Moffett cites are illustrative simply of vulgarity. 
The best people among the very rich do not allow themselves 
such nonsense, and some of them, to my certain knowledge, 


437 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


work as hard in trying to use their wealth wisely for the good 
of others as if they were apprenticed to a trade. 

I am sorry that you put so much faith in Socialism. In 
theory it is all very fine; but there has never yet been an in- 
stance of its being tried on a large scale with success. The 
trouble with it is that it leaves man’s innate selfishness wholly 
out of account, and starts from the assumption that everybody 
is going to be willing to live by the Golden Rule, if only we can 
begin by making a clean sweep of things as they are. A So- 
cialism that should come as the natural result of a community’s 
accepting the principle embodied in “Bear ye one another’s 
burdens” would indeed amount to something ; but that can only 
come slowly. Meanwhile, to get what good we can out of the 
sufferings and sorrows that fall into our lot, would seem to be 
our truest wisdom. After all, it is better to be a saint than to 
be a multi-milionaire, if we can only see it so; and “saints” are 
far more often the outcome of adversity than of prosperity. 
Please don’t take this for pious cant, but believe that it is my 
honest thought... . 


Please “squander” the enclosed on a rose-bush; and if you 
are unwilling to accept an obligation from a stranger, call the 
rose-bush mine, and regard it as a loan. 


To Masor TuHeropore K. Gisss 


June 20, 1905. 
My Dear Magsor Gisss: 

It seems a long time since I have heard from you, which is 
probably only another way of saying that I owe you a letter. 
If you knew how busy I have been the last few weeks, I am sure . 
you would judge me leniently as a correspondent. I had to 
preach five occasional sermons in five different places within 
ten days, in addition to my duties at Grace Church. One was 
a Consecration sermon, another an Ordination sermon, and the 
other three were preached to schools,—Groton, St. Paul’s Con- 
cord, and one in Summit, New Jersey. All this would be noth- 
ing to a bishop whose life is made up of that sort of thing; 

438 


CHURCH UNITY 


but to a quiet homebody like myself, it meant an unpleasant 
amount of motion. ... 

The most recent addition to the beautiful features of Grace 
Church is a new window in the series which Mrs. Child is hav- 
ing placed in the Honour Room in memory of her husband. 
You remember the little windows in the upper part of the room 
extending round two sides of it. There are seven of them in 
all, and they are to be filled with pictures representing the seven 
Parables in the thirteenth chapter of St. Matthew, the Parables 
of the Kingdom. The two already in are The Mustard Tree, 
with the birds of the air on the branches, and The Woman 
Kneading Leaven into Three Measures of Meal. The series 
when complete will be very beautiful. 

With your fondness for children, you would have enjoyed 
the closing festivities of the Choir School, which took place 
last week. The highest honour fell to a little German- 
American named Kemmer, whose name will be duly inscribed 
in the stone panels of the Wolfe doorway. ‘This usage of cut- 
ting the name of the best boy in the stone has now been main- 
tained for ten consecutive years. By an interesting coinci- 
dence, the young man chosen to present the “alumni medal” to 
the boy who was lucky enough to receive it, was Edward Hall, 
whose name stands at the head of the list on the doorway and 
who is to become, on the first of next month, one of the curates 
of Grace Church. I told the boys, in my address on the occa- 
sion, that I hoped that this indicated that in the future at 
least one in ten of our best graduates would enter the 
MINIStry..+ ss 


To THE Rey. Jonn W. Suter 


July 7th, 1905. 
My Dear Suter: 

I am sorry that you did not take up with the proposition of 
The Churchman to print your paper in the form of a letter, 
for I think it would have been just as effective in that shape 
as if it had been given a quasi editorial aspect. With almost 
all of your criticisms and suggestions, I am in cordial sym- 


439 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


pathy. Some of them were urged in the last revision of the 
Lectionary, which preceded the revision of the Prayer Book as 
a whole, but failed to secure a majority of votes. 

I recall distinctly the hard time I had to get permission to 
use the Song of Moses and Miriam on Easter morning. Bishop 
Coxe opposed the suggestion with his customary vehemence, 
thinking it more important that the congregation should be 
indoctrinated, on Easter morning, with reference to the details 
of the Jewish Passover, than that they should be uplifted by 
listening to what was sung when Israel saw the Egyptians dead 
upon the seashore. 

I do not think that the reluctance of The Churchman to 
father your article indicates a reactionary tendency on the 
part of the Editor, so much as it does his perception that the 
Church has become weary of the very word revision, and wishes 
to enjoy its Revised Constitution, Revised Canons and Revised 
Prayer Book, in peace and quietness for a while. Personally, 
I do not sympathise with this indolent mood, and, if the matter 
comes up in the neat General Convention and I have a seat in 
that body, I shall favor the appointment of such a commission 
as you propose. 


Aug. 22, 1905. 
Dear Mrs. Ketuoce: 

Your father was a fine type of the New England man. To 
such as he this country is beholden for those influences that 
make for the stability and permanence of its institutions. 

I thank you for sending me his picture and the exceedingly 
well written sketch of his life that accompanied it. Thanks 
also for your own account of the last hours, and of the days 
that led up to them. How thankful you must be that it was 
granted you to be near him and to minister to him. 

It makes me think better of my own poor efforts to speak 
God’s truth, that one who had endured so many sermons should 
have felt as you say he did about mine. I am getting to be an 
old man myself, being long past Dr. Osler’s period, and I can 
hope for nothing better than that I may grow older as bravely 

44.0 


CHURCH UNITY 


and as cheerfully as your father did. I will not offer you con- 
dolence, a thing of which you do not stand in need, for he 
whose bodily presence you miss had well fulfilled the number 
of his years ;—let me rather say,—Be of good cheer. He has 
left the company of those who say “Farewell,” he has joined 
the company of those who are waiting to say, “Welcome!” .. . 


North East Harbor, Maine, 
Sept. 5, 1905. 
My Dear McKim: : 

What an interesting experience it must have been to preach 
from the pulpit of Anselm. My highest distinction in that 
direction has been preaching in St. Paul’s, London,—but then 
it was another man who preached my sermon. Think of his 
having had the face to tell me of it! I am pained to hear that 
Mrs. McKim did not get as much good from the journey as it 
had been hoped she might do. Pray urge her to try N.E.H. 
once more. Next Summer Manning of St. Agnes thinks of 
taking a cottage here. You and he and I could have some good 
times and talks together. We have had a childless Summer for 
the first time, I think, since Inchcape was built. My daugh- 
ter Mary, being a good deal run down, left her children with a 
competent nurse to take care of them and came over here from 
Peterborough, N. H., to see whether the sea air would not do her 
some good. My other married daughter, Mrs. Robbins, with 
her family, has been all Summer at the Isles of Shoals. And 
so of my six grand-children there has not been one to comfort 
me all Summer. You ask,—‘Why six?” For the reason that 
my son Frank’s wife presented him with a fine boy in July. Of 
course he could not come. 

I wish you could have been here last Saturday. We gave 
Bishop Doane a fine send off,—this being the conclusion of 
his 25th Summer on the island. We had a reception for him 
on Miss Blodgett’s lawn, speeches from three college presidents, 
music by the band, and the presentation of “the freedom of the 
village” in an ivory box. We had lots of fun out of it and 
the good Bishop was highly pleased, as in fact every one 
present seemed to be... . 


441 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To Miss Gracte H. Doper 


November 3: 1905. 
Dear Miss Donce: 

The test of eligibility for office in such associations as the 
Y.M.C.A. and the Y.W.C.A. (so far as doctrine is concerned) 
ought, I think, to be personal rather than denominational. 
What I mean is that the question should be not “Do you belong 
to an ‘evangelical’ denomination?” but “Are you yourself an 
honest and earnest Christian in the sense in which those who 
founded the Association and make up the bulk of its member- 
ship take ‘Christian’?” What that sense is ought to be ex- 
pressed in the fewest and simplest words consistent with loy- 
alty to Jesus Christ as Son of God and Son of Man, our living 
Saviour, King and Judge. 

The conception of the Holy Catholic Church as a conglom- 
erate of “evangelical” denominations, is so far alien to all my 
religious thinking; and my sense of the increasing difficulty of 
satisfactorily defining the word “evangelical” is so keen; that 
I should much prefer the task of passing critical judgment 
upon the individual, difficult and delicate as that task always 
is, to taking the responsibility of declaring all Baptists to be 
necessarily, and no Universalists possibly, evangelical. 

The truth is that, as I hinted above, the adjective in ques- 
tion has ceased to be of very much descriptive value. To a 
Waldensian it means one thing; to an English Low-churchman 
another ; and to the average American Protestant still a third. 
Within my own memory it has carried various shades of sig- 
nification. Beliefs and opinions reckoned “evangelical” to- 
day, were deemed plainly unorthodox forty years ago. : 

The truth is, dear Miss Dodge, I am so deeply convinced 
that for test purposes (if tests we must have) the Apostles’ 
Creed is the very best formula in existence, on the score both 
of simplicity and historicity, that I am impatient of any sub- 
stitute for it. Perhaps this is one of my Anglican prejudices, 
and yet it was no Anglican, it was Richard Baxter (ecclesias- 
tically more yours than mine) who, in his later as was fain 
to write,— 


4.4.2 


CHURCH UNITY 


“The Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments, 
are now to me as my daily bread and drink, and as I can speak 
and write over them again and again, so I had rather read and 
hear of them than of any of the school niceties.” 

I am afraid that what I have said is not at all what you 
expected or desired me to say. Nevertheless, Animam meam 
liberavt. . . « 


December 14: 1905. 
My Dear BisHor SEYMovr: 

As I happen to be a member of the Judicial Committee be- 
fore which the case in Western New York is very likely, first 
or last, to come, there would be a manifest impropriety in my 
discussing the personal aspects of the question. I am free to 
say, however, that I quite concur in that sentence of your let- 
ter which begins “Convince me that our Lord,” etc. In such 
an event as that which you suggest, I should take the same 
course that you would. 

This does not mean that I concur in the dictum put forth 
by the House of Bishops, some years ago, that “fixity of inter- 
pretation is of the essence of the Creed.” On the contrary, I 
hold that, as God reveals more and more truth to us by the 
agency of discovery in the natural world, we are bound to 
modify our interpretation of the statements of the Creed. 
When I say, for instance, that I believe that Christ ascended 
into heaven, I do not mean a heaven located where the first 
framers of the Creed believed it to be. I simply affirm my be- 
lief that the event described in the New Testament took place, 
and I put my own meaning upon heaven, or rather I rule out 
a meaning of the word heaven which astronomical discovery 
has shown to be mistaken, and put in place of it what is evi- 
dently a larger and truer one. 

Science, however, has not made any discovery which neces- 
sitates putting a new meaning upon the words employed in that 
article of the Creed which describes the Incarnation. Hence 
no new interpretation is forced upon me, as in the other 


443 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


instance it is. I trust I have made my position clear, 
for I believe the distinction drawn to be a very important 
one. e e e 


To James H. Canrietp, LL.D. 


January 25: 1906. 
My Dear Dr. CanFiexp: 

I have your important communication of yesterday, and you 
may be sure that I shall give it very careful thought. There 
is no doubt in my own mind that, were we back again at the 
initial point from which we started, codperation would be a 
better word than competition. Competition, however, was the 
thing decreed, and the architects of the United States had the 
fairest possible chance put in their way to show what they 
could do in the way of designing a cathedral. Some sixty 
competed. 

It may surprise, possibly startle, you to learn that Columbia 
University, on whose letter paper your communication is writ- 
ten, 1s more responsible than any other single agency for the 
result reached. The Trustees, feeling themselves incompetent 
to judge of the purely architectural points involved, called in 
expert advice; and at the head of the Committee of Advisors 
was the Professor of Architecture at Columbia. I confess that 
when I recall the inadequate, some of them the absurdly inade- 
quate plans that were offered us for choice, by architects of 
the greatest eminence, I cannot help wondering whether the 
critic at your elbow would be able to do very much better than 
we are now doing, were we to pass the sponge over the whole 
design. 

This is merely an acknowledgment of your letter. I shall 
answer it more carefully, when what you say shall have had 
time to make its full impression on my mind. As Chairman of 
the Committee on the Fabric, I am, of course, only responsible 
for the proper execution of the plans which the Trustees have 
adopted; but as a Trustee, I have that larger responsibility 
which makes it incumbent on me to weigh carefully all criti- 
cisms that reach me from responsible sources. . . . 


Add 


CHURCH UNITY 


To tHe Epitor or THE SuN 


Feb. 9, 1906. 
Sm: 

In a friendly editorial comment upon the Grace Church 
Year Book for 1905-6, you observe, under date of February 
eighth, that during the present rectorship a transformation 
has taken place in Grace parish very similar to that at St. 
George’s under Dr. Rainsford. This is a serious, though 
doubtless an unintentional misrepresentation of the facts in 
the case. When I came to Grace Church in 1884, no such 
state of things existed as was in evidence at St. George’s about 
that time. On the contrary, I found a prosperous Church 
fully equipped for work, every sitting rented, and all of the 
more important forms of benevolent effort firmly established. 
Since then, there has been healthy progress, but, for the most 
part, it has been progress along lines more or less distinctly 
indicated before I came. It does not seem right or just that 
the brilliant record of Bishop Potter’s episcopate should efface 
the memory of the solid work done by him during the sixteen 
years of his tenure of office as Rector of Grace Church. 


To THe Rey. C. L. Suartrery 


March 5, 1906. 
My Dear Dean Suatrery: 
What you say about the recent Declaration! gratifies me 
very much. The document is destined, I fear, to work a cleav- 


1The reference is to “A Declaration on Biblical Criticism,” signed by 
over 1800 Broad-churchmen in England and America, in which was re- 
corded their conviction: 

“That it is not without grave responsibility and peril that any of us 
should build the faith of souls primarily upon details of New Testament 
narrative, the historical validity of which must ultimately be determined in 
the court of trained research—although many of us, until such final decision 
take shape, may cling devotedly to the traditional details in question”; and 
their confidence: 

“That the Faith of the Church in the years to come, whatever historical 
revisions may await us, will stand, without risk and without discontinuity, 
upon the spiritual foundations to which Christian experience and the Creed 
of the Church alike bear testimony.” 


445 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


age in the ranks of Liberal Churchmen. I dissented from it, 
not only passively but actively, for I did what I could, though 
unsuccessfully, to prevent its issuance. Frankly, I do not 
remember to have ever seen so many reputable names attached 
to so vulnerable a piece of writing. 

There is something pathetic in the fact that probably not 
one in three of the laymen who were persuaded to sign had any 
distinct notion of the positions to which they were committing 
themselves, so carefully was the real purport of the paper 
veiled. 


March 17: 1906. 
My Dear Miss M ; 

. .. Thank you for the promise of The Ledger, the first 
copy of which arrived yesterday. I am afraid I never could 
have been made a Christian by the Torrey method, though I 
so far agree with what you report Dr. Tomkins as saying, as 
to be of the opinion that our pulpits are too silent on the 
subject of hell. 

The truth is, the present-day preacher is so afraid of being 
thought belated if he indulges in any of the old-time phrase- 
ology on that subject that, as a rule, he keeps silence as to 
retribution altogether,—in my judgment, a fatal mistake. It 
appears to me that hell is as much of a reality as heaven, and 
that the absurdities of the medievalists ought no more to pre- 
vent us from saying so, than ought the evils of the medieval 
chemistry to make us sceptical as to the possibility of any 
chemistry. 

I have never changed my conviction that eternal life in 
Christ and no eternal life away from Him is the real New 
Testament teaching. It can be set forth without lurid accom- 
paniments, and yet in a way to startle the conscience, and cer- 
tainly the conscience needs startling now and then. It cer- 
tainly is a very curious fact in theology that, among all the 
voices in the Bible, that of the mild and gentle Jesus is the 
one most eloquent of doom. There is much more about hell in 
the Gospels than in the Epistles, and very much less in the 
Old Testament than in either Gospels or Epistles. The sul- 

4.4.6 





CHURCH UNITY 


phurous symbolism of the Apocalypse, of course, stands by it- 
self as a thing apart, but even there I seem to discern more 
hints of spiritual death and destruction than of everlasting 
consciousness of torment... . 


To tHE Rey. Extwoop Worcester, D.D. 


March 23: 1906. 
Dear Dr. Worcester: 

I have read with the greatest interest your two sermons, 
one on keeping Sunday and the other on the outlook for Eman- 
uel Church. I share your solicitude as to what is to become 
of free institutions in America if Sunday goes by the board. 
The note of warning is not sounded a moment too soon. We 
have drifted a long way from the state of things when even an 
Emerson could speak of Sunday as “the back-bone of our 
elvilization.” 

I am myself disposed to see a closer connection between the 
Lord’s Day and the Fourth Commandment than you are willing 
to concede, but that is a secondary matter. It may interest 
you to know that, when the Prayer Book was under revision, I 
made an effort (it was an unsuccessful one) to secure the in- 
sertion, before the Decalogue, of the rubric in the Scottish 
Prayer Book which gives it to be understood that the Com- 
mandments are to be taken in a spiritual sense. I forget at 
this moment the precise wording. This would have made the 
saying of the Decalogue easier for those who hold with you as 
to the application of the Fourth Commandment in its letter. 


April 30: 1906. 

My Dear Miss MerepiTu: 

. - . I cannot discuss the Crapsey case, for the reason that 
I am a member of the Court of Appeals to which the matter 
will probably be carried on points of law, for this court has no 
jurisdiction on points of doctrine, the supreme court of all 
not having yet been constituted. As a lawyer’s daughter, you 
will, I am sure, appreciate this reticence. But while I cannot 


4A 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


discuss the “Crapsey case,” that is to say, the guilt or inno- 
cence of the accused, I am quite at liberty to speak of the 
principles involved in the trial. My convictions on this point 
are expressed to a dot in the article on Clerical Veracity which 
appeared last week in the Post, a copy of which I enclose, 
thinking you may not have seen it. Sedgwick’s opinion here 
quoted, wherein he draws a distinction between interpreting 
articles of the Creed and denying them, seems to me absolutely 
accurate; and I marvel that this distinction should have played 
so small a part in the discussions at Batavia. 'To my mind, it 
is the key to the whole situation. 

I have been reading the April copy of “The Hibbert” with 
great interest, and happened yesterday afternoon upon some- 
thing curious. In the January number, there was an article 
(one of a series) entitled The Working Faith of the Social 
Reformer. Somewhere in the course of the argument, I came 
upon a suggestion as to the nature of authority in matters of 
thought which I had myself, years ago, embodied in a Sonnet. 
Never having seen this suggestion, or rather parable, anywhere 
else before, I thought that it might interest the author ... to 
see our common property expressed in metrical form. Accord- 
ingly, I sent him a copy of the Sonnet in a note expressing my 
keen appreciation of the value of his essay. Weeks passed, 
and I heard nothing from him, in so much that I was tempted 
to think that I had been guilty of bumptiousness in addressing 
a stranger. In fact, I felt badly snubbed. 

Yesterday in reading the third installment of The Working 
Faith of a Social Reformer, I came all of a sudden upon a line 
quoted from my Sonnet, though with no reference whatever to 
the authorship. Was it not an odd way of acknowledging a 
lettertyieics 

Has not the outburst of sympathy with San Francisco been 
magnificent? It prompts the belief that whatever future may 
be in store for dogmatic Christianity, practical Christianity 
is spreading. The Outlook is right in affirming that history 
shows no finer instance of an awakening of the human sense 


of brotherhood. 
448 


CHURCH UNITY 


In making an appeal for the San Franciscans from the pul- 
pit, I dwelt almost exclusively upon this point. 


May 2, 1906. 
Dear Miss Merepitu: 

Pardon me if I suggest that you have missed my point. I 
can go as far as most men in the matter of freedom of interpre- 
tation as respects the Creed; but I draw a sharp line between 
interpretation and denial. When that line has been passed by 
a clergyman of the Episcopal Church, I conceive that no in- 
jury is done him by judicial action condemnatory of his posi- 
tion. Bishop Brooks was a much firmer believer in Individual- 
ism pure and simple than I am; but even his language on this 
subject, as quoted by you, I am perfectly willing to accept; 
for you notice that throughout the passage he reiterates the 
statement that we all believe, though believing differently. If 
you write in the word “‘deny” in place of “‘believe” and “denial” 
in place of “interpretation” in the passage, you will see that 
its meaning becomes entirely changed. 

On the supposition which you invite, namely, that the falsity 
of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth might become, at some 
future time, demonstrable, a supposition which, by the way, I 
find almost unthinkable, one of two results would have to follow 
for the Episcopal Church,—either it would have to change its 
Creed by the omission of an article (which it did in 1789, in 
the case of Descensus ad Infernos) or else, like other national 
Churches of which history makes mention, it would go to 
pieces, 

Two points in your letter seem to me irrelevant; first, your 
reference to the changed interpretation of the Genesis story 
of the creation, which has never been, in the whole history of 
the Church, put into the Creed and accounted one of the essen- 
tials of religious belief; and, secondly, your reference to im- 
moral clergymen retained in office in spite of their offences. 
To this last point, my reply is that two wrongs do not make 
a right. You say that you incline to think that any man 
should be permitted to stay in the Church who can say the 

44.9 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Creed, no matter what his interpretation. Again I urge you 
to substitute “denial” for “interpretation,” and consider what 
such a result would mean for the multitudes of silent church 
members who are scandalized at the thought of a preacher’s 
denying in the evening what he has solemnly affirmed in the 
morning. 

You speak of the doubt of Saint Thomas. I cannot but 
think the reference infelicitous. Had Thomas continued in his 
denial, do you really believe that he would have been accounted 
a proper person to serve in the company of those who were 
appointed to be “‘witnesses of his resurrection?” 

Pardon all this plain speaking .. . 


June 11: 1906. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. - . Meanwhile, I am “all sole alone” (an expressive al- 
beit pleonastic phrase) at the Rectory. By way of promoting 
sociability in the deserted house, I got together yesterday (Sun- 
day) afternoon, between five and six, some fifty Italians of 
Grace Chapel, the greater number of whom had been recently 
confirmed, and we had what they call in New England “a sing.” 

The whole thing was under the auspices of Deaconess Gard- 
ner, who has been having similar gatherings at the Nursery on 
Sunday afternoons during the past Winter. 'To the influence 
of the hymn-singing, I cannot help attributing largely the 
really remarkable religious interest which led no fewer than 
thirty-three of these people, all of them of mature years, and 
more than half of them men, to take so serious a step. ‘The 
Italians interest me, I confess, more than any of the other “na- 
tionals” that go to make up the census of New York. The 
Germans are rapidly leaving the neighborhood of our East- 
Side Settlement, and my hope is that the Italians may become 
sufficiently Americanized to wish to take their places... . 


N.E.H., July 30: 1906. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 
. . « This last number of the Hibbert I find unusually inter- 
esting. But what a confused state of mind does this able 
450 


CHURCH UNITY 


journal throw one into! First one writer hits you on one 
side of the head and then, before you have had time to recover 
balance, the next one boxes the opposite ear, but though the 
two blows may leave you standing up straight by their mutual 
connection, there is a buzzing in the brain as of “innumerable 
bees.” 

My little grand-child Katharine has been calling to me 
through my open window to come down and play with her on 
the piazza, and to my excuse of letters to write she replies that 
she knows they are “not important.” So good-bye. 


To THE Rev. Georce WitiiAMm Doveunas, D.D. 


October 31, 1906. 
My Dear Mr. Dovetas: 

I have this morning received your interesting and important 
communication in re possible benefactions to the Cathedral. 
You may not know that I was made aware, more than a year 
ago... of Mr. F ’s readiness to give substantial aid to 
our enterprise. At that time, namely, early in 1905, I had 
an interview with him on the subject. He wanted something 
distinctive, and in a sense detached, or semi-detached. 

I suggested what seemed to me, I confess, the very choicest 
of all the architectural features of the Cathedral, namely, the 
north tower and porch. These ought certainly to be built if 
possible in connection with the completion of the choir, to give 
dignity to the structure. Finding Mr. F disposed to con- 
sider this proposition, I requested the architects to make draw- 
ings upon which estimates might be based. ‘There was con- 
siderable delay in meeting my wishes on the part of the archi- 
tects, for which, perhaps, they ought not to be blamed, as the 
task of getting out working drawings at short notice was not 
an easy one. However, before the drawings were finished, the 
fire which destroyed St. Thomas’s Church occurred, and know- 
ing that Mr. F , in his capacity of vestryman, was likely 
to be called upon to give largely to the building enterprise, I 
had not the face or the courage to approach him again on the 
subject. It was, I am bound to confess, a deep disappoint- 


451 











WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


ment, for although I have little doubt that, when the inertia of 
the start has once been overcome, money will flow to the Ca- 
thedral in abundance, now is the time to give to our building 
undertaking with most effect. 

Subsequently I learned that Mr. F had made a contri- 
bution to the general building fund of, I think, $10,000 or 
thereabouts. I drew the inference that he had changed his 
mind with reference to the larger contribution and probably 
for the reason above suggested. The tower and porch would, 
of course, involve a much larger outlay than one of the chapels, 
or even than one of the arches ; but it would be a splendid monu- 
ment, especially interesting because it is to be the St. John’s 
tower, the other three flanking towers which are to complete the 
square being named for the Synoptic Evangelists. This tower, 
bearing as it will the name of the Evangelist and Apostle from 
whom the Cathedral takes its designation, will enjoy a pecu- 
liar dignity and will probably be the entrance most used when 


the Cathedral is finished. . . . 





To tHe Rey. F. pz Sora Menpes, Pu.D. 


November 17: 1906. 
My Dear Dr. Menpzs: 

From the morning paper I learn that yesterday, in an ad- 
dress to your congregation, you expressed the hope that I 
might “in time” apologize for words recently used by me in 
debate, with reference to religious work among the people of 
your race. If I can be shown either to have been mistaken in 
what I said or to have been betrayed into ill temper in saying 
it (the two conditions under which apologies from public 
speakers may fairly be demanded) I shall not ask for “time,” 
but shall own my fault without delay. However, let us see. 

The two propositions to which, in my brief speech, I com- 
mitted myself were these ;—first, that there had been of late 
years a startling spread of Agnosticism among the Jews of 
this community; and, secondly, that there had been during 
the same period a marked increase in the percentage of He- 
brew crime. For proof of the former of these statements, I 


452 


CHURCH UNITY 


can, if necessary, adduce sufficient evidence from Hebrew 
sources alone. For the latter of them, I look for proof to 
what I believe to be the very highest authority in the city and 
county of New York. If the statistics are demanded, they 
shall be furnished. They are all the more startling, let me 
add, because of the former high repute of the Jewish element 
in our population with respect to morality in general and 
domestic morals in particular. 

In tracing the connection between Agnosticism and crime, I 
did only what I supposed all consistent theists, whether Jewish 
or Christian, would agree in doing. I should be quite as ready 
to apply the principle to my own coreligionists as to yours. 
The point I made was that religion as such having been dis- 
carded by vast numbers of our Jewish fellow-citizens, it would 
be false delicacy, if not sheer cowardice, that should move us 
to refrain from trying to bring them back to a belief in a 
God of righteousness and judgment. Had we been discussing 
in the Convention missionary work among degenerate Chris- 
tians, of whom there are all too many, I might have said the 
very same thing. For with them also it is the godlessness that 
is productive of the lawlessness. Until Darwinian morals shall 
have become securely established, of which at present there 
would seem to be no reasonable prospect, the old relation of 
cause and effect between the decay of faith and the deteriora- 
tion of conduct will hold. As to this I had supposed that 
Christian and Hebrew theologians were agreed. I am sorry 
if the fact be otherwise. 

And now a word as to temper and spirit. I am sure, my 
dear Dr. Mendes, that upon this point you do me an injustice, 
and that “in time” you will acknowledge it. Personally I have 
never shared the prejudice against the people of your race 
which is too prevalent among us Gentiles. ‘To my thinking, no 
people on the face of the earth can boast so proud a tradition 
as can your people, nor does any single race possess one-half 
the historic interest that attaches to your race. With the 
methods of “conversion” commonly pursued by Christian evan- 


gelists, I have had small sympathy. Paul’s question, Why 
453 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? ought to 
work both ways, and be translatable into Why compellest thou 
the Jews to live as do the Gentiles? We have tried too hard 
to “Gentilize” the Jews. Years ago, out of a conviction that 
such was the case, I discontinued the Good Friday collection 
which, from time immemorial, had been annually taken up in 
Grace Church for the “conversion of the Jews.” When that 
sad procession of mourners for the victims of Russian cruelty 
(Who that saw the sight can ever forget the pathos of it?) 
was making its dolorous march up Broadway, I caused the 
great bell of the Grace Church chime to be tolled, in token of 
Christian sympathy, 

I mention these personal matters, not because the situation 
seems imperatively to demand my doing so, but because ever 
since I have been privileged to know you, I have valued your 
good will, and would fain retain it. Let Jew and Christian 
understand each other better. Your God is our God, and 
our belief that He has revealed Himself in Jesus more fully 
than He revealed Himself to Moses ought not to make us forget 
that for both of us the objective of worship is one and the 
same. 

Hopeful that the pleasant relations which have existed be- 
tween us in the past may not be so much as ruffled by the inci- 
dent which has occasioned this letter, I remain, with great 
respect, 

Most truly yours. 


To THE Rev. Carrotut Perry 


November 21, 1906. 

My Dear Perry: | 

How I wish we could talk this matter over instead of trying 
to arrive at an understanding through a correspondence! If 
you happen to be in the city, pray drop in at the Rectory and 
“answer back” to what I have now to say. 

Your short and easy method of settling the question raised 
by Dr. Crapsey’s trial, strikes me as fallacious just-on account 


454 


CHURCH UNITY 


of its shortness and easiness. The state of things existing 
when Jesus in person sought out the man who had been excom- 
municated from the synagogue, and settled the whole matter 
by saying, “I that speak unto thee am He,” is not to my think- 
ing at all paralleled under present-day conditions, when there 
is no “Word made flesh” to turn to for a decisive judgment. 
If the faith in the Christ of the Gospels is to be perpetuated, 
it must be by means of a picture or portrait of Him. This pic- 
ture or portrait, moreover, must be a verbal one. Throw this 
word-picture away, and merely speak of One Jesus with no 
other-world characteristics, no wonder-marks attached to 
Him, and what we may call the objective of loyalty and devo- 
tion presently is vaporized into nothing. Hence the impor- 
tance which the Church attaches to the Catholic Creed. It 
is the traditional picture of the Church’s Head. If any one 
says “I prefer Renan’s Christ-picture” or “I prefer Strauss’s 
Christ-picture to the Church’s Christ-picture,” there is nothing 
to be said. Only such a one must not complain that he is 
unjustly treated if the Church says to him, “Having trans- 
ferred your allegiance to another Christ than the one whom 
we have enshrined, you can no longer be happy in our Com- 
pany.” <A Christ stripped of all the attributes which differ- 
entiate the Church’s Christ from Plato’s righteous man, would 
hardly persuade me to leave all and follow Him. 

Perhaps you think it almost treason against the Holy Ghost 
to attach this amount of importance to a form of words, and 
yet I seem to remember a certain sentence in the Acts which 
runs, “Who shall show thee words whereby thou and all thy 
house shall be saved.” If I admitted to my mind the thought 
that Almighty God had allowed the entire Church of Christ to 
fall into error, on the points affirmed in what may be called its 
minimum Creed, I fear that my faith in Divine Providence 
would be so seriously shaken that I should turn Agnostic with- 
out delay. 

I have written, my dear Perry, in a somewhat dogmatic vein, 
but only for the sake of clearness and brevity. You know me 
too well to misinterpret the method. 


455 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To Francis H. Dewey, Ese. 


November 27, 1906. 
My Dear Francis: 

It was most kind of your mother to remember me in making 
her bequests. I shall greatly value the picture as a reminder 
of one of the oldest of my friendships and one of the most 
faithful. 

For some years past, I have been from time to time sending 
to the Parish Library of All Saints’? Church volumes from 
my library commemorative of the parishioners of my time who 
have died. I mean to send as a memorial of your mother The 
Memoir and Letters of the Late Bishop Huntington, whom she 
knew in early life and for whom she always expressed the 
warmest affection and respect. The volume will, of course, be 
suitably inscribed. 

I seldom go to Worcester, as you say, for I am tied here 
very securely most of the time, and when I do go to Massachu- 
setts my children in Boston are apt to claim me; but I do not 
forget, and cannot forget my many years in the old Rectory 
on Pearl Street. 


To tHe Rev. Ernest L. Pappocx 


Dec. 8, 1906. 
My Dear Mr. Pappocx: 

Many thanks for your letter. It is much that our little 
controversy has proceeded wholly without heat. There is only 
one word I should like to add to what has been already written. 
Of course, I do not hold that there is any soul-saving efficacy 
attached to the simple acknowledgment in terms that Jesus 
was born of a virgin. What I am contending for is the reten- 
tion of the miraculous element in the Christian religion, con- 
vinced as I am that the elimination of that element from the 
Gospels will inevitably, by discrediting hopelessly the record, 
bring the whole house tumbling about our heads, sooner or 
later, and sooner rather than later. The Nativity and the 
Resurrection are the most notable of all the miracles, and as 


456 


CHURCH UNITY 


such they hold their place of eminence in the Creed. Explain 
these away and all the rest must go. There will be left Jesus 
the prophet, mistaken upon many points; Christ the Son of 
God, regnant over nature, will disappear. 


To CotoneL CHartes W. Larnep 


December 20: 1906. 
My Dear Coronet Larnep: 

Everything from your pen that comes my way, I read with 
careful attention, knowing that it will be well worth my while 
to do so. Heretofore, assent has invariably accompanied 
perusal. I must confess, however, to finding it impossible to 
go along with you in your advocacy of Socialism as a promis- 
ing experiment, which ought, by all means, to be tried by the 
Christian nations. I quite agree that the social condition 
which you predict as the probable result of such an experiment 
is everything that could be desired. The socialistic formula, 
“From every man according to his ability, to every man accord- 
ing to his need,” took a powerful hold upon my imagination 
when I first heard it; and I have never ceased to admire the 
felicity of the phrase, though I have never become convinced 
of the present feasibility of putting it into practice. If only 
we could be assured of the universal prevalence of unselfish mo- 
tive under a socialistic régime, all would be well, but my exper- 
lence has convinced me that selfishness is almost, if not quite 
as prevalent in the proletariat as among the plutocrats. By 
all means, let us do everything we can to better the condition of 
the “submerged tenth,” and to provide work for all; but my 
observation of the working of “politics” in New York (and 
even under Socialism politics would be always with us) has 
convinced me that the men of exceptional administrative ability 
would not, under a socialistic régime, turn so large a percent- 
age of that ability to account for the general good as they do 
‘Jat presentini(.: 

Do not imagine, dear Colonel Larned, that I fail to appreci- 
ate the dreadful features of the present state of things. These 
you have not exaggerated. Upon every heart that has in it a 

457 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


spark of sympathy, they must weigh heavily. There are times 
when one feels tempted to accept Goethe’s dismal suggestion 
that this world is hell. Nevertheless, I am unconvinced that we 
can turn hell into heaven by any legislative readjustment of 
social conditions. If we can only work the Golden Rule into 
men’s souls, it will work out from there into a general better- 
ment; but I do not think that, by scheming for a general 
betterment, we can get the Golden Rule into men’s souls. If 
you are right, then welcome Bryan—I had almost written, wel- 
come Hearst—but I do not see it. If I ever do, I will be as 
frank in confession as I have been now in contradiction. .. . 


To tue Rev. C. L. Suatrrery 


Christmas Eve, 1906. 
My Dear Dean Startrery: 

Thanks many, and a Merry Christmas besides. The Mas- 
ter of the World, which I am reading with great interest, 
strikes me as the best book of its class since Ecce Homo. It 
avoids the ponderosity of such works as In the Days of His 
Flesh, and equally avoids the slightness and thinness of some 
treatises that might be named. It is a book to be put into the 
hands of college graduates, both men and women, and of lay- 
men generally who, while not professing such knowledge as the 
theological seminaries impart, do yet take a keen and intelli- 
gent interest in the questions you discuss. 

Again thanking you for this notable addition to our apolo- 
getic literature, I am, 

Faithfully yours. 


To THe Rev. L. C. Mancuester, D.D. 


December 27, 1906. 
My Dear Dr. Mancuester: 

Many thanks for the historical sermon received today. I 
read it carefully when it first appeared in the columns of the 
local paper, and am glad to have it in this permanent form. 

It was kind of you to give my sermon so thoughtful a read- 


458 


CHURCH UNITY 


ing. Among the many letters I have received on the subject, 
yours is the only one in which reference is made to what I have 
all along thought to be a possible contingency, namely, an 
exodus to Rome on the part of many of our people, in case of 
our showing ourselves recreant to our trusteeship on the 
great verities of the Christian faith. Much has been said 
about our losing the liberals. There is also, as you point out, 
much to be said about our losing the conservatives. 


December 31, 1906. 
Dear Mapam: 

Some of the points you make in your letter of the 23rd 
have both wit and wisdom; but I cannot help thinking that in 
your main contention you are wrong for lack of acquaintance 
with the facts. The stipends taken away from the French 
clergy by the new law do not come from a fund raised by tax- 
ation, but are the interest, and, as I understand, a very low 
interest, upon property taken away from the Church during 
the Revolution of ’89. Instead of restoring the real estate, the 
State agreed to pay interest on its value. This gives a differ- 
ent complexion to the whole matter. I enclose an article from 
one of our New York papers, written by a jurist of standing, 
which seems to me to state the case fairly. 

Of course, if one holds the ultra-Protestant estimate of the 
Church of Rome, firmly believes the Pope to be the “beast” 
of the Apocalypse, and the ecclesiastical system of which he 
is the head the “scarlet woman,” nothing can be too bad for 
the Roman Catholics in the way of punishment; but I confess 
to having little sympathy with that view of the matter. I be- 
lieve that the papacy has outlived its usefulness and ought to 
disappear; but I have little doubt that in God’s large plan for 
the Christianizing of the world, and especially of Western Eu- 
rope, it has rendered in the past no slight service. What we 
want is a Catholicity that shall be genuine and workable with- 
out being papal. 

If you are at all interested in seeing this thought worked 
out more fully (and I judge from your letter that the whole 

459 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


subject does interest you), you may like to run your eye over 
the pages of the little book which I venture to send with this. 


To THE Rey. Franx I. Parapise 


December 31, 1906. 
My Dear Mr. ParapisE: 

You by no means “speak as a fool,” but on some points, it 
appears to me, with much wisdom; and you bring out the pa- 
thetic side of all this trouble with marked clearness and force. 
I am sorry that anything in my Sermon, or in the letter ap- 
pended to it, should have struck you as harsh. That was the 
note which I sought sedulously to avoid. I cannot admit that 
my use of the word “iconoclasts” was either unkind or unjust, 
for to turn a gospel into a fable is unquestionably a destructive 
act. I took pains to say that I believed the “iconoclasts” to 
be sincere and honest, which was as much as I could truthfully 
concede, 

I dislike the “rock-crystal’ illustration almost if not quite 
as much as you do, though I confess to holding with Cardinal 
Newman that religion without dogma is inconceivable. The 
very first Article of the Apostles’ Creed, at which few stumble, 
however it may fare with them further on, contains four dis- 
tinct dogmas, no one of which admits of what Huxley used to 
be so fond of calling “‘verification.” ... 

I am perfectly willing to make large allowance for the mys- 
tics, in fact, am half a mystic myself; but when the “spiritual- 
izing’? process reaches a point where all doctrinal delimitation 
is set at naught, and the propositions which have all along been 
held to contain the essentials of Christianity are flouted, I can- 
not help thinking that it is time to call a halt. 

You speak of the need of a better understanding of rural 
conditions by city clergymen. I grant it. But may I suggest 
that it is equally desirable that country parsons (I use the 
words in George Herbert’s blessed sense) should acquaint them- 
selves with the difficulties that beset their city brethren. 

It is my honest conviction that, had the Episcopal Church 
done nothing whatever by way of protest against these recent 


460 


CHURCH UNITY 


denials, the exodus of devout believers to the Roman Catholic 
Church would have been appalling in its extent, in fact, unpar- 
alleled by any similar departure since 1845. Pray take this 
into account in judging the situation. ... 


To tHE Rev. Joun WILLIAMS 


December 31: 1906. 
My Dear Mr. Wituams: 

You say that your letter of the twenty-eighth “needs no re- 
ply.” Pardon me, but I think it does. It is quite as much a 
revelation of your inner mind to me as the Sermon can have 
been of mine to you. My mistake, through all these years, I 
think, has been foolishly taking it for granted that my oppo- 
nents in the House of Deputies had read my books and pam- 
phlets. Had they done so, they would have learned from them 
quite as fully and clearly as from this recently published Ser- 
mon (which, by the way, was only intended primarily for 
parochial use) my true bearings, both theological and ecclesi- 
astical. Of course, there was no reason in the world why they 
should have read the books and pamphlets; but, having consti- 
tutionally a certain dread of repeating myself, I have failed to 
enlarge, as I should have done, in debate, upon my own per- 
sonal convictions, as a means of strengthening confidence in 
my course. My great aim has been, and is, to bring the or- 
ganic law of the Episcopal Church fully into line with the prin- 
ciples of the Quadrilateral. Those principles having had the 
almost unanimous assent of the entire Anglican Episcopate, it 
seems a not unreasonable aspiration to seek to conform our 
Constitution to their expression. In what is left me of life, I 
do not expect to prosecute this endeavor in as whole-hearted 
a way as I have done in the past, but prosecute it to the end 
I shall, having absolute confidence in the soundness of the 
Lambeth position. 

Another mistake of mine has been failing to correspond with 
men like yourself who are active on the other side, so ascer- 
taining their mind and purpose, and in that way, as far as pos- 
sible, making concessions in advance. The consideration which 


461 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


has deterred me from such a course, has been the feeling that 
I might become involved in “entangling alliances,” and find 
myself confronted in debate by pledges which subsequent cir- 
cumstances had made it difficult to fulfil. This is why I have 
been charged with “springing” things on the Church, when 
nothing was really further from my purpose. In fact, in the 
few instances in which I did outline my intentions beforehand 
in published writings, it was inferred by some on the other side 
that I could not possibly be saying what I meant, since it 
would be foolish for anybody to give away his case in advance. 

I am very glad, my dear Mr. Williams, of an opportunity 
to say these things to you, because if, in the providence of God, 
we should be permitted again to serve together in the House 
of Deputies, our doing so will be far less hampered than it has 
been in the past by mutual misunderstanding. .. . 


462 


XIV 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


4 hes were many interesting letters which 


came to Dr. Huntington in the course of the 

year 1907, occasioned by the Preamble debate. 
It raised the whole question of credal expression and 
subscription. Arthur W. Hutton, writing from Eng- 
land, said: “I do not think that the recitation of a 
formal creed really tends to devotion. A man’s true 
creed is that which he says in the form of prayer alone.” 
One correspondent, objecting to the removal of the Ar- 
ticles, remarked, “They contain much truth, strongly 
stated.” Another mentioned that “they tend to keep 
mediocre men out of the ministry.” Still another said, 
“They seem to link the English Church with the other 
Reformed churches.” Louis F. Benson, the Presby- 
terian, wrote: “I do not see, in times like these, how 
any church can ‘fall back’ on the Nicene Creed. Its 
doctrine of the Divine Presence is so explicit, where 
modern thought is so agnostic, as to suggest a lack of 
reverence, and to unfit it to serve in any sense as an 
irenicon or a refuge.’ 

Phillips Brooks was quoted as saying that “the Ar- 
ticles in the Prayer Book in America are simply an 
affair of the book binder anyway.” 

463 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Through all the years, and the Conventions leading 
up to 1907, there had been going on parallel to the dis- 
cussion of the amendment of the Constitution, the de- 
bate as to the change of the name of the Church. In 
regard to this matter, although of course, with his feel- 
ing for Church Unity, Dr. Huntington was naturally 
not satisfied with the name of the Church, he was never- 
theless clear that this name must not be changed. 
After the failure of the attempt in the San Francisco 
Convention of 1901 he wrote, as to the word ‘‘Protes- 
tant’’: 


The protesting church is not the church of denials, it is 
the church of witness, of witness to certain great principles 
of genuine and primitive Christianity. Because the Church 
is Apostolical it must witness, and so long as it witnesses it 
protests. 


In his paper on the subject, read at the Church Con- 
gress at Pittsburgh in 1903, he mentioned three propo- 
sitions which he declared to be clearly related. They 
were as follows: 


(1) That the present name of the Church is unsatisfactory ; 

(2) That the name, though unsatisfactory, is as good a one 
as under existing conditions we deserve; 

(3) That no change of name is either likely or desirable 
until back of it there shall be discernible a change of heart. 


It was his passion for unity which lay at the basis 
of his sympathetic relations with his brother clergymen 
of all varieties of outlook and opinion. He looked be- 
neath differences to those common ideals, out of which 

464 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


were to be built the unity which should contain differ- 
ences. To a prospective curate, he wrote: “I have no 
fear about our working together harmoniously. Love 
for the Lord Jesus Christ and an absorbing interest in 
building up his Kingdom, are the requisities I should 
most desire in an assistant, and these I believe you have. 
You are also thoroughly attached to our own Church 
and desirous of working in her ways, and this being the 
case, whether you ‘symbolize’ with Ryle or with Liddon, 
will not make so much difference to me.” 

His brethren felt that Dr. Huntington would be in- 
terested in their special problems, and that he would 
not esteem them merely parochial or personal, and there- 
fore negligible, but worth his thought and time. They 
felt this instinctively, and they were never disappointed. 
The study in Grace Church rectory became the clergy’s 
confessional box. The room itself breathed an air of 
security, of competent scholarship and sanctity, that 
invited to confidences and promised sympathetic help- 
fulness. It combined awesomeness and _ intimacy. 
They are potent influences, the studies of those who are 
trusted leaders and chief pastors. Among such studies, 
that of Grace Church stands preéminent, and its walls 
could tell a most revealing story of influences and in- 
spirations which have contributed to the upbuilding of 
the Church. It has been in a good sense a star cham- 
ber, the power of which has often outweighed that of 
open assemblies. “Burdened with many projects,” 
writes one who had made him sharer in the solution of a 
perplexing problem, “he had time always for the con- 

465 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


sideration of those which burdened others.” Another 
fellow-minister testified to the fact that he not only re- 
ceived the sermons and pamphlets which his younger 
brethren sent him, but that he always read them care- 
fully and acknowledged them. This reading he used 
to do in the street-cars, which he found a convenient 
place for this exercise. It is probable that there was 
no man in the Church so intimately in touch with ris- 
ing or promising men throughout the country, or who 
had more quiet influence in directing the right men to 
places of usefulness and importance. 

He not only worked for unity; he exemplified and 
lived it. The outstanding fact about his life is its 
unity. ‘This unity is one of motive power, of purpose, 
of deliberate aim. It is based upon the man’s passion 
for Church Unity. It is this which gives the life its 
dramatic quality and peculiar interest. In itself the 
life unfolds uneventfully. It may be described, in a 
sentence, as covering in its activity a half-century, the 
last four decades of the nineteenth century and the first 
decade of the twentieth, a period divided almost evenly 
between his two pastorates. They were years of great 
significance in the development of the Episcopal 
Church in the United States, in which he became an 
acknowledged leader. But his interest in the Church’s 
problems and programs was always one interest. His 
activities were the outcome of one vision which never 
grew dim, the vision of Church Unity. He had 
dreamed a dream, and the dream was that the Chris- 
tianity of America should one day present a united 

466 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


front to the forces of opposition, and claim his beloved 
land for Christ. Nor was it a subconscious or half- 
realized motive. It was his ever-present and deliber- 
ately chosen aim. It appears, even in unexpected 
places, as the explanation of his choices, and the con- 
sulted compass of his course. In the beginning, it was 
the controlling factor which led to his choice of the 
Episcopal ministry as his life-work. At the end, his 
last public utterance was an address on unity. A born 
fighter, with certain natural instincts toward liberalism 
and a bold advocacy of progressive views, he neverthe- 
less held these instincts in check, to serve what was to 
him the infinitely greater cause of unity, and turned the 
joy of battle into that skill and leadership in construc- 
tive debate and deliberation which made him one of the 
foremost parliamentarians of his generation. It was 
a consciousness of this his deliberate choice which is 
manifested in his reply to his son, who urged him to ar- 
range material for a future biography: “My life is 
written in the journals of the General Convention.” 

Soon after the Boston Convention of 1904, when the 
Huntington Amendment * had passed, at a meeting of 
the Eastern Convocation in Massachusetts, at which the 
amendment was under discussion, the writer of these 
words spoke of him as follows: 


1This amendment to the Constitution was designed to open the way to 
experiments with affiliated congregations of Swedes or Poles, and there was 
hope in Dr. Huntington’s mind that finally it would have much wider ap- 
plication to “separated brethren of other names.” It forms the closing 
paragraph of Article 10, and gives freedom to bishops to “take order for 
the use of special forms of worship.” 


467 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


The most interesting thing about the Huntington Amend- 
ment is, after all, Dr. Huntington himself. A few weeks ago, 
at an informal gathering of the clergy, I heard Dr. Huntington 
say that he is now an old man, and that he must pass on the 
cause of church unity which he has so much at heart to his 
younger brethren. I can associate with Dr. Huntington no 
thought of age. He seems to me to illustrate perpetual youth; 
but it is true that he is approaching his seventieth year. If 
I had the gift of eloquence, I would like, at this moment, to give 
some worthy expression to the debt of gratitude which it 
seems to me that the church owes to him. That he may have 
many more years of active service is the wish of his host of 
friends. Nevertheless, there is a sense in which it is true that 
his life work comes to its conclusion; it is open to him now 
to reap the joys of accomplishment. He stands in this respect 
in somewhat the same position as that occupied by the Presi- 
dent of Harvard College. Surely we need not wait for the 
time when he can no longer hear us, to tell one another how 
great we believe that accomplishment to be. He is the great 
Presbyter of his generation,—a Presbyter from choice! His 
opportunities to be Bishop have been many. Has he remained 
a Presbyter because he preferred the more generous living of a 
great parish? Has he remained a Presbyter because he has 
failed to estimate at its true value the office of a bishop? 
Surely not. It is because he has marked out for himself his 
life work; because he saw clearly years ago the work that he 
believed he could best do for the church, and the way in which 
he could best do it. He saw the vision, and having seen the 
vision, he went to work quietly and devotedly to lay the founda- 
tions of the Holy City. His vision was the vision of church | 
unity for the people of the land which he loved; and as a part 
of that vision he saw with clearness the mission of the Episco- 
pal church in contributing to this end. He has never faltered 
in his enthusiasm in this cause. The opportunity of the Epis- 
copal church has always been in his eyes a great and splendid 
opportunity. It is easy to-day to see a vision, in these open- 
ing years of a new century; it was a different matter in the 


468 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


seventies,—that decade of depression in church life and relig- 
ious faith. 

In his development of parish life his course has illustrated 
the same gift of seeing the vision, and working wisely and pa- 
tiently for its accomplishment. Worcester was a small town, 
and his church a small mission at the beginning of his twenty 
years, but he saw the great city that was to be, and he saw at 
its center the great parish, which should be All Saints; and at 
the strategic points of the city the other four parishes which 
should bear the names of the four Evangelists. He worked 
to carry this conception well on towards its realization, and 
has lived to see it practically an accomplishment. It has been 
the same in Grace Church, New York. There he has completed 
his twenty years. He saw the vision of what a great city 
parish ought to be. In all the details of the development and 
in the erection of buildings suited to the carrying on of the 
work, he has been able to bring his hopes to completion. One 
may not pause to describe in detail the excellences of that 
parish work. He has brought to pass in that parish the open 
church; which gives of its best to the people, who pour in 
through its doors to their services, and provides at the same 
time the complete opportunities for worship to those who are 
the parish’s members, and who support its work. He has con- 
ceived what ought to be the staff of ministers in such a parish ; 
and he has the work completely officered by deacons and dea- 
conesses. He has developed perhaps the finest choir and 
choir school, in every detail of its equipment, which can be 
found anywhere in the Anglican Communion. And all the 
while he has been a preacher of versatility and power. 

But this parochial side has been used only as illustrative of 
his method in the work which he has cut out for himself in the 
church at large. Here he was dealing with the largest prob- 
lems, or rather problem, for it has always been one problem,— 
that of church unity. It was for this cause that he gave him- 
self to the task of leading the forces of revision during these 
last thirty years. He has made himself, for this cause, the 
consummate legislator and the accomplished liturgiologist. 


469 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


In the whole history of the revision of the Prayer Book, and 
incidentally of the Hymnal, and of the revision of the Consti- 
tution and Canons, his has been the commanding figure. 
Sometimes this work of revision has been spoken of as of slight 
consequence ; the detailed changes in Prayer Book or Canons 
have been alluded to disparagingly, as trifling; but all this is 
beside the mark. It has been a stupendous task, and what is 
more, it has a far-reaching significance. No man to-day can 
adequately estimate what it means. What the revising of the 
liturgy has done in commending the Episcopal Church to the 
people of America we do not begin to realize. The same is 
true in regard to the revision of the Constitution and Canons, 
and in every step which has been taken to render the Chicago- 
Lambeth Declaration effective. The other day, when I stole 
into the New York delegation at the General Convention, in 
order to say a word to Dr. Huntington, I found him sleeping 
peacefully, with his head resting against a pillar of Emmanuel 
Church. But he has never been asleep in that convention when 
he ought to have been awake; and no man who has ever heard 
him, will forget his brilliancy in debate, his watchfulness at 
every point in the progress of legislation, his fairness to his 
opponents, his acumen, and his consummate skill in leading to 
successful issues causes which he had at heart. 

The largeness and fineness of his work as a liturgiologist has 
not as yet been recognized. It is too soon for us to realize 
what he has accomplished ; and few men have any notion of the 
time and thought that he has devoted to this work. There is 
a delicacy of touch, an appeal to reason, and a tenderness of 
feeling, and withal a deep appreciation of all that is best in 
liturgical expression, which have no parallel in the experience 
of the Anglican Communion for two hundred years. When I 
asked him not long ago if he would not preserve, in a certain 
bit of liturgical work, a response which he had originally writ- 
ten but had subsequently amended, he told me that there was 
perhaps no single point to which he had given more thought in 
his liturgical writing, and he made me see, as I had not seen, 
how the amended form was the right form, and the only one 


470 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


that could be allowed. Some day the Church will recognize 
what Dr. Huntington has given to it liturgically. In the 
Prayer Book itself, as we have it to-day, there are examples of 
his work, and they stand the test of comparison with the treas- 
ures which the Christian centuries have bequeathed us. 

In this last convention, the passage of the Amendment and 
of the Canon were, in a certain very real sense, his final tri- 
umph. In one aspect these seem small matters, almost trifling 
details; in reality, they mark the accomplishment of what he 
set out to do for the church many years ago. It is not that 
there are not other things to be done; it is not that it does 
not remain for the church to carry to a larger and deeper 
realization that which it has now won through his efforts; but 
it is true that, just as in his two parishes it has been granted 
to him to see the accomplishment of his hope and a realization 
of his vision, so in the church at large, the work which he set 
himself to do, he has done, and the vision of his earlier days 
has in large measure come true. 

Surely it is well that the church should bring to him now its 
sheaf of praises and its tribute of gratitude. In some small 
measure to contribute towards this end has been my purpose 
this afternoon. 


When the address, of which the above was a part, was 
by vote of Convocation sent to Dr. Huntington, he ac- 
knowledged it by the following letter: 


My Dear Suter: 

It is seldom indeed that tears come, now-a-days, into these 
failing eyes, but you have brought them there by your generous 
words, and while the impression is fresh upon me I want to 
thank you. I did not suppose that there was any living person 
who could discern as clearly as you have done the thread of 
purpose that has run through my long ministry, for I have not 
been much in the habit of talking about it,—even to intimate 
friends. You must have gathered your conclusions from a 
very careful study of my published writings. Anyhow you 

A71 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


have caught the clew, and though you have done far more 
than justice to what I have accomplished, you have perfectly 
understood my aims. 


The “thread of purpose” which he wove into his life 
and ministry was never divorced from a confident spirit 
and high hopes of ultimate success. “I think we may 
well be content,” he writes Dr. Newman Smythe 
shortly before 1900, “if we can have any share in shap- 
ing a movement which is bound to triumph before the 
century closes.” 

His last public utterance was the paper on Church 
Unity which he read at the Boston Church Congress a 
few months before his death. After his death, in ac- 
cordance with his request, the pamphlet containing this 
address was sent to many friends, following his own 
designated list. 


472 


LETTERS 


¥ 
ly 


WO 


ih 
Nn yt 


4 
URS 
yee 


edi tal 
Mie iy} 
ONLINE HM Eh Rey 
iwi yyy iy Halal 


yA) ; 

A LAY 
hid 

( HEN 
Vis i i 

in Wy "' 

7) Vek it ih NbN A TA 


Ni WAh 
i i 


i 


qi 
WN); 


moh 
Ma 
tO: 
Ut 


Agi 
{ a ig i it hay ot ( 
ah ai Tere ey heeradani Wo n't PAGELE Tat italy 
Mont i } i Hotere ae ty rte i Vetadal ny 
fy ay yerekt Aitis Dy SAL ah de Le ik Hogi 
et NAAN or 





To tHe Rev. Extot Wuire 


January 18: 1907. 
My Dear Waite: 

I have just read with deep interest and with large, though 
not entire, acquiescence your forceful letter in this week’s 
Churchman. There can be no question that the redress of the 
grievances you recount is a more urgent affair than any heresy 
trial possibly could be. I think, however, that your letter, 
valuable as it is, would be more helpful still if it pointed out 
any practical method by which the evils complained of could 
be mended. 

Thus far the Christian Church has confessedly proved itself 
the most potent of all agencies ever tried for alleviating the 
woes of humanity. It is true that the alleviation has been 
only partial. Still it has been better than nothing. Should 
any social movement (and the Church is a social movement ) 
emerge which augured better things, should the “Gentiles” to 
whom you refer form themselves into a society more full of 
promise, I feel sure that earnest souls everywhere would flee to 
it without delay, gladly relinquishing anything and every- 
thing that had been hitherto most dear to them. I scan the 
horizon all around, if peradventure I may detect the little 
cloud prophetic of any such refreshment, but I look in vain. 

All the schemes for social betterment of which the air is full 
(and you will find the latest of them in this week’s Independent ) 
calmly ignore the fact of human selfishness and the prevalence 
of human sin. No system can possibly succeed which leaves 
these subjective difficulties out of sight. 

Feeling this way with regard to the Christian Church, I can- 
not quite go with you, either in what you say in disparagement 
of efforts to safeguard the foundations of the Faith upon 
which the Church is built, or in your contemptuous treatment 


AT5 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


of the poor little endeavors which we Christians who live in 
great cities are making to mend matters. You write as if we 
had sold ourselves to the millionaires, and were preaching peace, 
where there is no peace, for fear of having our revenues cut off. 
I do not think that this is quite true. 


April 9, 1907. 
My Dear | 

I don’t want you to lose any sleep because of this newspaper 
flurry over the Cathedral statuary. The Thaw trial is coming 
to an end, and the reporters doubtless feel that they must be 
looking about for new “head-lines.”” The statues are not a 
failure, and those who are working themselves into a fever on 
the subject are doing so needlessly. The facts in the case, as 
I learn them from Messrs. Heins & La Farge, are these: 

A middle-class Englishman by the name of Harry Hemm, 
who has done some work as a carver, came over here last Fall, 
hoping (Mr. Heins thinks) to secure employment in this coun- 
try. He was treated with great civility, in return for which 
he wrote a petulant letter to an English architectural journal, 
finding all the fault he could with the Cathedral. This criti- 
cism appears to have stung our friend Mr. to such 
an extent that he thought it necessary to rush into print with 
protests against the way in which his artistic work had been 
injured by faulty stone cutting. He contends that he has not 
been treated with sufficient respect as the official sculptor of 
the Cathedral, and that he has had no opportunity to inspect 
the process of working out the stone statues from the plaster 
models. 

With respect to these two points, I will simply say that there 
is no such official position as that of sculptor to the Cathedral 

. . and, secondly, that there has been no time when Mr. 
could not, by simply crossing the ferry to Hoboken, have in- 
spected and criticized the cutting process as minutely as he 
desired. 

There is one further observation which I should like to make, 


476 











CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


with reference to a general principle underlying the whole 
controversy. The critics of the work write as if every statue 
introduced into the Cathedral should conform to studio stan- 
dards of excellence, and be, so to speak, a masterpiece of plas- 
tic art. This is, I would suggest, an entire misconception. 
Architectural sculpture is a thing by itself, the figures employed 
in it being necessarily subordinated to the general effect. The 
corporation of Trinity Church did not think it beneath the dig- 
nity of their standard of architectural excellence, to introduce 
statues of terra-cotta (or some similar material) in the niches 
on the outside of their tower. Personally I should not like to 
carry the principle above enunciated quite so far as that. I 
should have preferred to see the statues made of the same stone 
of which the tower is built; but I hold that in principle the 
Trinity Vestry was right, and that mural statuary should be 
judged by entirely different standards from those which we 
apply to marble statuary intended for exhibition in galleries. 
Imagine, for instance, the building committee who had charge 
of the construction of the Milan Cathedral (if such committee 
there was) insisting that every one of the five thousand images 
on the pinnacles of the roof should conform in artistic excel- 
lence to the work of a Flaxman or a Canova. 

I hope that I have made it clear that affairs are not in such 
a desperate condition at the Cathedral as the hungry reporters 
would have the public believe. 


To tHe Rev. Resse F. Ausor, D.D. 


April 29, 1907. 
My Dear Atsor: 

Yesterday Bishop was here at Grace Church for the 
purpose of conducting a wedding, and without in any way im- 
plicating you I brought up the matter of his opposition to 
the Preamble. To my amazement I found him ignorant of the 
fact that the expression “sufficient statement of the Christian 
faith” occurred in the official wording of the Lambeth declara- 
tion with respect to the Creeds. He was inclined to doubt my 
own recollection on the subject until I showed him the actual 


AT7 





WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


passage in black and white. His principal objection to the 
language of the Preamble seemed to be that, on the subject of 
the ministry, the language of it would be acceptable to the 
Presbyterians, From my own irenic point of view, this had 
seemed to me, I confess, rather an advantage than otherwise, 
particularly since the Anglican position on the subject of Holy 
Orders had been already so thoroughly safe-guarded by the 
Tenth Article of the very Constitution of which the proposed 
Preamble, if adopted, would form a part; but this argument, 
for some reason or other, seemed to have little weight with 
Bishop : 

When you spoke to me, the other day, about my alleged 
Machiavellian tendencies and methods, I hardly knew whether 
to laugh or cry. I have been so completely open and above 
board in my declarations and intention with respect to church 
legislation, that the accusation in question would seem to be on 
the face of it absurd. In the case of three of the most impor- 
tant matters with which I have had to do, to wit, the revision 
of the Prayer Book, the reconstruction of the Missionary 
Canon and the “side-tracking” of the Thirty-nine Articles, I 
have been careful to see that the Church at large was thor- 
oughly informed of my intentions months before the meeting of 
the Convention. The real truth of the matter is that there 
has been nothing in my whole course as an ecclesiastical re- 
former, which was not clearly indicated in the first book I ever 
wrote. The real reason why I have been suspected by the 
“Catholic Party” of indirection, has been an apparent inabil- 
ity on their part to conceive of a man’s being so simple-minded 
as to say in advance, in matters of this sort, just what he in- 
tended to try to do. Starting out in this spirit to counter- 
mine against me, they have simply misplaced their mines, and, — 
when their dynamite was finally fired, they have discovered 
that their counter-mine had nothing over it. On the contrary 
they have in many instances found themselves “hoist with their 
own petard.” 

I urged Bishop to reconsider his determination to op- 
pose the Preamble, and expressed the hope that he would give 


A78 








CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


me a further opportunity to disabuse his mind of false imagina- 
tions on the subject. I have, however, little expectation that 
my words will have the slightest effect. 


May 6: 1907. 
My Dear Miss M : 

Yes, I received and received gladly, the April Hibbert. 
What is equally to the purpose, I received, a week ago, the 
Editor of the Hibbert, and had a long conversation with 
him. . 

It seems he is a Professor in Manchester College, Oxford, a 
college which represents religious liberalism, or perhaps out 
and out Unitarianism, just as Mansfield College is supposed to 
stand for Evangelical Orthodoxy. 

We talked for about an hour, and I was much interested in 
what he had to say... . 

I told him frankly that I was not in sympathy with the 
general trend of the Journal, but that I found it very stimulat- 
ing reading. This seemed to satisfy him. 

. . . There was nothing defiant about him at all, as is apt 
to be the case with advanced Liberals. The interview ended by 
my giving him an Essay of mine on the Thirty-nine Articles, 
entitled T'ract No. Ninety-one. The paper is designed to 
show that Newman, in Tract Ninety, gave the Articles a fatal 
stab, from which they have practically bled to death... . 





May 6: 1907. 





Dear Dr. 

. . . I feel, as you do, that the death of Dr. Fulton involves 
an irreparable loss. In my judgment, he was the ablest Editor 
we have ever had in the Episcopal Church. For general level- 
headedness, I put him above both Hugh Miller Thompson and 
John Henry Hopkins, the two men with whom it is natural to 
compare him. The falling off noticeable in the last few num- 
bers of the Standard is very marked, 

I also am with you heartily in what you say about the need 
of an evangelical revival. I have long been of the opinion 
that we were overdoing the objective side of religion in the 


A79 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Anglican Church; and when it came, the other day, to com- 
memorating the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of 
— — & Co., dealers in silver shrines, etc., etc., with a relig- 
ious service, I felt that the climax had been reached. The 
Bishop of Jamaica was here yesterday, and told at my table 
a story of having been asked, by certain ardent “Catholics” of 
the “Brotherhood of St. Andrew,” to bless their buttons. He 
replied “No, I will bless the boys, but I will not bless the 
DUtCODS, Gansu 


Friday, June 21, 1907. 
Dear SUSIE: 

Many thanks for your nice wedding-day letter. I have 
ample ground for gratitude for what came to pass on that 
memorable day, for you have brought into these later years 
of a failing life large store of affection and a filial dutifulness 
deeply appreciated. FF. and M. and I all go on to Boston to- 
gether tomorrow. I shall draw a long breath when I shall have 
discharged my duties in connection with the Phi Beta Kappa 
Society, and can look back upon it as a thing of the past.  Pre- 
siding at a large public dinner will be a new experience for me. 


To F. C. Morenouss, Esa. 


June 24, 1907. 
My Dear Mr. MorenovseE: 

I have your kind letter of the 22nd anent the Preamble. At 
present I am confined to my room for a needed rest-cure, the 
fatigues of the Winter having been temporarily too much for 
me. Later on I hope to be able to comply with your request 
for an article; but in view of restrictions which my medical 
man has put on me, I dare not make a definite promise. 

Briefly I may say, in order to satisfy your scruple, that by 
“sufficient statement of the Christian faith,’’ I mean precisely 
what the Fathers at Chalcedon meant, when they insisted that 
no further definition of the faith was needed than that which 
they put forth. I had already seen and carefully considered 
Bishop ’s strictures before receiving your letter. In my 


480 





A 


wes ie ee : 


7 


wa ih ; 
a e ‘ rat 


CAA 





fret 14 


NS 


ee 


sige gent 





GRACE CHURCH 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


judgment, he entirely misunderstands the situation, treating 
the Preamble as if it were a covert attack upon the sacramental 
teaching of the Prayer Book. The Sacraments are specially 
guarded in the Preamble; but are treated, as I firmly believe 
they should be, not as doctrines but as institutions. These 
ideas I should like to elaborate, but it is impossible for me to 
do more than indicate them at present. 


North East Harbor, Maine, 
July 27, 1907. 
My Dear Dr. Wasninerton: 

It appears to me that your main point is met by the rubric 
“Concerning the Service of the Church,’ prefixed to the Amer- 
ican Book at the late revision. In that rubric a distinct and 
authoritative statement is made to the effect that the office of 
Holy Communion is one that is complete in itself, and may be 
used “separately.” This seems to me to relieve us of all obliga- 
tion to say the Morning Prayer in advance, and sanctions the 
observance, now so widely prevalent, of administering the 
sacrament by itself at an earlier hour than that at which 
Morning Prayer is said. Our usage at Grace Church (which 
I cite simply because it illustrates my own convictions as to 
the point about which you have consulted me) is that described 
in the pages cut from our Year Book which I enclose. It is 
my personal belief that a weekly administration on Sunday 
noons, after the Morning Service, would greatly encourage 
*“non-communicating attendance,” a custom which to my think- 
ing simply nullifies the purpose of those who framed the service 
at the time of the Reformation. .. . 


To Dr. McKim 


Inchcape, Northeast Harbor, 
Aug. 1, 1907. 
Dear McKim: 
I am glad you have succeeded in heading off the “Lady 
Chapel.” Such nomenclature is most unwise in the U.S. A. 
Your article in the Harv. Rev. and mine in the Hibbert, 
arrive at the same conclusion, namely, that the crisis has ar- 


A481 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


rived in the life of the Christian Church, when it will be wise to 
abandon obsolete outworks, and to betake ourselves to the de- 
fense of the citadel. 

You make, I am compelled to acknowledge, a fine showing 
for Virginia in your Ter-centennial Address, but where William 
and Mary College (which had the start) is set over against 
Harvard and Yale and the splendid family of colleges sprung 
from their loins, one feels that there is still something to be 
said for New England. I am not over-proud of what the 
“Anglo-Saxon Church” as represented by the P. E. C. has 
accomplished in 300 years. 


To tHe Rev. Jutivs W. Atwoop 


Inchcape, Northeast Harbor, 
Aug. 2, 1907. 
My Dear Frienp: 

When we talked together on the train the other day, I could 
not help feeling that a great sorrow was awaiting you in the 
near future, and now I learn through Mrs. Dale that it has 
come. Need I say how entirely you have my sympathy in a 
bereavement than which there is no heavier than can befall 
a man? 

Personally I know every step of the way you are now tread- 
ing. Doubtless you feel, as I felt under the like conditions, 
that absolutely everything worth living for is gone. But you 
will come out of that state of mind, the old beliefs will reassert 
themselves, and in the resumption of the old duties you will find 
your chiefest comfort. That is the blessed thing about the 
Christian ministry as a calling. It becomes not less but more 
engrossing after one has been touched by sorrow. This is not 
true of most of the other occupations of life. Surswm corda— 
we have not seen the end. 


Inchcape, Northeast Harbor, 
Sept. 10, 1907. 
Dear Bisuor Hatt: 
Of course, I am wholly with you in the matter of an “objec- 
tive” presence for purposes of worship. In my judgment, the 


482 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


teaching of some Anglicans on that subject is far more open to 
suspicion of idolatry than the Roman doctrine of the deceived 
senses of sight and touch. All I meant was that I thought 
“feeding” (unless explained) hardly tantamount to that in- 
ward and spiritual presence which guarantees to us the friend- 
ship of Christ,—the most attractive feature of our relig- 
1D Ti nae 

As to my Preamble (which I cannot help hoping may even- 
tually receive your support) I used “duly” for the very pur- 
pose of leaving open the question you object to seeing defini- 
tively closed. Even the Pope committed himself (in the case 
of Kaiser Wilhelm I.) to the doctrine that all the duly baptized 
are ipso facto, members of the Holy Catholic Church. 

As to the point you raise about Orders, it appeared to me 
in framing the Preamble that the very fact that the Ordinal 
is sanctioned and made obligatory in the body of the Constitu- 
tion, makes the language I have used the proper language for 
a Preamble. I wanted to convey the thought often expressed 
in the phrase “the memory of man runneth not to the con- 
trary.” However, I am very glad of your criticisms and 
thank you for them. 


To Dz. BatrersHaLyu 


Inchcape, Northeast Harbor, 
Sept. 18, 1907. 
Dear Dr. BatTErRsHAL: 

What you say about Tract XCI shows a far deeper insight 
into my meaning and purpose than I had anticipated from any 
reader passing an off-hand judgment. This leads me to think 
that the judgment passed is not an off-hand one, but deliberate 
and well thought out. As to the “Preamble,” while I recog- 
nize the force of your criticisms, I cannot think that any one 
of them is fatal. It is true that the Constitution is little 
known to our people at large. It is possible that it may be 
better known at some future day. Anyhow, it is our organic 
law, and the language of it can be quoted with effect even to 
those not familiar with the context of what is quoted, e. g. 


483 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


the Amendment which after many years of effort I succeeded in 
getting into Article X at the last Gen. Con. looks like a little 
thing, but what it means is the repeal of the Act of Uniformity. 


To J. Prerponr Morean, Esa. 


September 25, 1907. 
My Dear Sr: 

Not wishing to take my colleagues on the deputation to the 
General Convention by surprise, I am enclosing a copy of a 
Resolution which I propose offering at an early stage of the 
session. A similar, though less carefully prepared Preamble, 
secured a majority of the votes of both orders in the Conven- 
tion of 1898, and failed to carry only because the presiding offi- 
cer ruled that the majority must not be simply a majority of 
both orders, but a majority of the Dioceses entitled to vote in 
the Convention. Commending the present proposal to your 
consideration, as being particularly appropriate to the begin- 
ning of our 4th Century of ecclesiastical life in America, I am, 

Faithfully yours. 


To C. Grant La Fares, Esa. 


October 10: 1907. 
My Dear Mr. La Farce: 

I am glad to find that you think the deaconess institution 
can be built for the sum you name, and I hope your conjecture 
will prove sound. It should be distinctly understood that, on 
this subject, I am corresponding with you as the Warden and 
President of the Board of Trustees of the New York Training 
School for Deaconesses, an incorporated institution, and not as 
a ‘Trustee and Chairman of the Building Committee of the 
Cathedral of St. John the Divine. The two corporations are 
entirely distinct, and the only relation between the two in this 
instance lies in the fact that the cathedral corporation has 
ceded to the deaconess school corporation the right to build 
on the Cathedral Close. 

Please preserve this letter, as it is of great importance. 


48 4 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


To Dracongess W—— 


Monday, Oct. 28, 1907. 
My Dear Cuarine: 

I do not exaggerate when I say that one such letter as yours 
would amply repay me for all the effort it cost me, through 
many years, to secure recognition for the Order of Dea- 
conesses. ‘Tio have been the means, even though ever so indi- 
rectly, of making one fellow creature “constantly and radiantly 
and increasingly happy” in this rather sorrowful world of ours 
means much to me. Were I to receive many such testimonies, 
I might find myself in a like mood of mind and heart to that 
which you describe. 


To rue Rr. Rev. Henry C. Porter, D.D. 


October 31, 1907. 
My Dear BisHorp: 

While I agree with you in thinking that the younger clergy 
ought to take an interest in the details of the revision work of 
1883-1892, I doubt whether they can be made to do so by the 
republication of The Book Annexed. At the time when The 
Book Annewed as Modified was published, I anticipated a large 
sale; but nothing of the sort happened, and I suspect that Mr. 
James Pott much regretted having undertaken the job. 

In my judgment, the thing most to be desired is to secure 
the admission of some of the prayers in the book within the 
covers of our present Prayer Book. I have figured it out that 
there are some three pages of space unavailed of in the Prayer 
Book as it stands; and, at my suggestion, the House of Depu- 
ties passed a resolution appointing a commission to consider 
the feasibility of utilizing this vacant space by the introduction 
of more prayers. Whether the measure passed your house, I 
am not informed; but I rather think that it did not. If more 
fully explained, it might pass next time. The scheme, as I had 
it in mind, would not have disturbed the paging of the standard 
Prayer Book in the least degree, a very important point in 
its favour. 


485 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To tHE Rev. Cuarence A. LANGSTON 


November 6, 1907. 

My Dear Sir: 

It may interest you to see the Preamble in the form in which 
it was originally presented to the House of Deputies, and I 
therefore enclose a copy. Of course, I think it was injured 
by the Amendments inflicted upon it in its passage through the 
two houses. I did my best to keep the document from being 
mangled, but without success. However, it is substantially the 
thing I desired to see enacted, and I ought not to complain. 
As the author and first promoter of the Quadrilateral, I should 
naturally like to see it introduced into the Constitution un- 
changed; but so strong is the prejudice in some quarters 
against it that I deemed it wiser to conciliate opposition as far 
as possible by amplifying somewhat the phraseology. Besides, 
I wanted to provide in advance a substitute for the Thirty- 
nine Articles, in the event of their being disestablished, and this 
also was a reason for somewhat enlarging the limits of the pro- 
nunciamento. With this I am sending you a copy of Tract 
No. 91, a discussion of the Articles which may not have come 
your way. It is encouraging to find so intelligent an interest 
in the whole subject manifested by one who could only judge 
of our Convention talk at long range. . . 


To Ropert H. Garpiner, Esa. 


November 15, 1907. 
My Dear Mr. Garpiner: 

I am very glad to have your expression of sympathy with 
the movement to disestablish the Thirty-nine Articles. It did - 
not seem to me wise, late in the session, to press the matter. 
Otherwise I should have fought Dr. McKim’s motion for a re- 
vision. I felt so sure that, first or last, his proposition would 
come to grief (as it did) that I refrained from opposing it. 

You are quite right in discerning a connection between the 
Preamble and the proposal to disestablish the Articles. I 
threw out a hint of such a connection in the debate on the Pre- 


486 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


amble, but felt that I should jeopardize the passage of that 
measure if I introduced another issue in immediate connection 
with it. The Preamble, as I look at it, preserves all there is of 
importance in the Articles, aside from so much of the contents 
of the latter as is already safeguarded by the Creeds. Of 
course, there will be a certain amount of reaction against the 
Preamble, such as has already manifested itself in the columns 
of The Churchman. There always is reaction. ‘There was 
reaction in the case of the Revision of the Prayer Book, follow- 
ing immediately upon the Convention of 1883, which had been 
almost unanimously in favor of the measure. 

I am confident, however, that there will be a counter-reaction 
before 1910, and that the Preamble will ultimately pass, even 
if by reduced majorities. 'Towards the bringing about of this 
end, I am thankful that I shall have your highly valued help. 


To tue Rev. B. Tartzotr Rocers, D.D. 


November 15, 1907. 
My Dear Dr. RoceErs: 

I hate vagueness as much as you do, but to mystery I am not 
averse, and I cannot help thinking that there are some regions 
of theological thought where it is impossible to be as clear as a 
bell and as deep as a well at one and the same time. 

My aim in constructing the Preamble was to put into it the 
maximum of such points of belief and polity as have secured 
general consent among churchmen. Beyond this I did not dare 
to go. I am not without hope that, three years from now, you 
will be found among the supporters of the Preamble. .. . 


To tHe Rev. Jutivs W. Atwoop 


November 16, 1907. 
Dear Mr. Atwoop: 

In view of what passed between us last Summer at North 
East Harbor, I feel that I owe you some explanation of my 
having, since then, cooled off a little in the matter of the “open 
pulpit.” You may have seen in print a remark I made in the 


487 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


House of Deputies, when charged by Hodges of Baltimore with 
having brought the matter to the attention of the Convention, 
that, so far from having done as he alleged, I owned up to 
having only “‘a very limited sympathy with the measure.” 

My modification of view grew out of what was said in debate 
when the “open pulpit” was under consideration. The ground 
taken by Mr. Pepper, and I think by others, was that there 
existed a sharp line of distinction between priests and prophets, 
and that, while prophets were sporadic and might turn up 
anywhere, so to speak, priests belong to a settled order of 
things which must not, on any account, be disturbed. Now 
I question very gravely whether any self-respecting Presby- 
terian or Congregationalist will feel very much like accepting 
an invitation to preach in one of our pulpits, if he understands 
that such license carries with it no recognition whatsoever of 
his being a Christian minister. Holding, as I do, that the 
ministry instituted by Christ was meant to include all three 
of the Christological functions, to wit, prophethood, priesthood 
and kingship, I cannot assent very heartily to the segregation 
of prophethood which the new Canon seems to imply. 

I voted for the Canon, but did so because I felt that for the 
Convention to reject it would cause misunderstandings worse 
than those to which I have above referred; but I did not feel 
as sanguine in the premises as I showed myself in our conversa- 
tion of last Summer. Hence this word of explanation. 


November 21, 1907. 
My Dear Sir: 

- . . I shall be very glad to receive a copy of the manual 
to which you refer, though I ought to say frankly that, in my 
judgment, “patriotism” is quite sufficiently stressed already 
in our public schools, and that there is danger of flag worship 
passing into a crude form of idolatry. What I advocated in 
the Convention speech to which you refer, was the inculcation 
of “theistic morality,” by which I mean, of course, ethical 
teaching with a divine sanction attached, quite irrespective of 
theological or denominational distinctions. That such a body 


488 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


of ethical teaching may be held and taught in common by 
Roman Catholics, Protestant Christians and Hebrews, has 
been established by conferences at which representatives of all 
of these ways of religious thinking have been present. 

Personally and individually, I am far from being satisfied 
with this minimum of religious instruction, since I believe that 
the youth of a nation substantially Christian should be given, 
as part of its training, instruction in the rudiments of Chris- 
tianity; but I have common sense enough to see that, under 
the sectarian conditions now existing in this country, anything 
of the sort is impossible. Ethical teaching, however, such as 
Christians and Hebrews hold in common, ought not to be im- 
possible; in fact, unless we insist upon it and that soon, we 
shall find ourselves raising up a generation that will hold in 
business life no higher standard than the “rules of the game,” 
and in domestic life will acknowledge no duties whatsoever that 
prove irksome. 


To Henry Leverett Cuassz, Ese. 


November 21, 1907. 
My Dear Mr. Cuase: 

Your letter has interested me deeply, both as respects sub- 
stance and tone... . 

I should hike to make a little clearer, if I may, what is really 
in my mind, when speaking as I have done both in print and by 
word of mouth, of the neutralization of the territory of sacra- 
mental theology. I have been far from meaning by that phrase 
the suppression, or even the discountenancing of such beliefs 
as those which you so fervidly express in your letter. But 
holding as I do, perhaps mistakenly, that the actuality of the 
Presence of Christ through the Holy Spirit is altogether too 
large a thing to be tied to any single definition of its nature, 
and holding further that such an appreciation of the eucha- 
ristic symbolism of the Presence as you describe is, to a large 
extent, a matter of temperament, I consider that the swing of 
the Church’s pendulum ought to cover at least so much of the 


489 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


arc of the circle as lies between Transubstantiation, on the one 
hand, and what is known as Zwinglianism on the other. 

If I believed such a doctrine of the Real Presence as logically 
implies the practise of eucharistic adoration to be a part of 
the “original deposit” which makes Christianity the thing it 
is, I should leave the Episcopal Church to-morrow, and seek a 
communion in which the tenet in question was not merely 
tolerated but insisted upon, as strenuously as the doctrine of 
the divinity of Christ is insisted upon, eae ys as an essential] 
part of the Christian religion. 

I was brought up, as a child, in the Episcopal Church, and 
under the ministrations of a pronounced High-church rector. 
Pardon me if I say that, had no other religious influence come 
into my life, I fear that long ago I should have gone off into 
Agnosticism or Pessimism. I was saved from this by catching 
the accents of what would now be called evangelical preaching 
at a critical moment in my college life. It has been this fact, 
taken in connection with the further one that, for some years, 
I dabbled considerably in natural science, which accounts for 
my having dealt with questions theological and ecclesiastical 
by the inductive rather than the deductive method. Possibly 
I have carried the maxim (if it is proper to speak of a prin- 
ciple enunciated by Christ Himself as a “maxim”), “A tree 
is known by his fruits,” somewhat too far; but looking out over 
the religious world as a whole, I have not seemed to find my 
highest ideals of character exemplified and embodied most fre- 
quently, either in those ages or in those lands where the “‘sacra- 
mental system” has been the most widely accepted and the 
most rigorously enforced. 

Take France, for example. I am not prepared to deny that 
she has supplied shining instances of sainthood; but how are 
we to account for the fact that, having been in almost exclusive 
possession of the sacramentalists from the beginning, she is 
to-day more anti-Christian than Christian? Italy and Spain, 
also the strongholds of the sacramental system, show a similar 
decline. Of course, you may retort upon me that the argu- 
ment Post hoc ergo propter hoc has no logical force, and I ad- 


490 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


mit it; but you must allow that the facts in the case seem to 
make against the notion that exclusive sacramentalism is con- 
ducive to the religious well-being of communities. 

Moreover, aside from the large public life of the Church, I 
have seemed to find more concrete instances of Christlikeness 
among my non-Catholic than among my Catholic acquaint- 
ances. For one man of your convictions who talks as you do, 
there seems to me to be a dozen whose tone is utterly unsym- 
pathetic and whose temper is acrid. An Anglican communion 
made up exclusively of John Inglesants, would be indeed a de- 
lightful companionship; but an Anglican communion made up 
of Lord Halifaxs, I would rather keep out of than get into. I 
trust that, in saying this, I make no breach of that charity 
which is the bond of perfectness, for I acknowledge that my 
experience may have been one-sided, and my inferences either 
unfortunate or unjust. 

With this I am sending you a copy of a little book of mine, 
published some years ago with a view to helping on the Unity 
movement now so conspicuously to the fore. I shall esteem it a 
kindness if you will read the chapter entitled Signs and Seals, 
and let me know whether my position is so very far removed 
from your own as you have been in the habit of thinking. 

Again thanking you for your letter, which has called forth 
a more confidential expression of my own feelings than I am 
in the habit of making, for I do not wear my heart on my 
sleeve, I remain, 

Faithfully yours. 


December 9th, 1907. 
My Dear Mr. Oppycxe: 

Why your letter in The Spectator failed to fall under my ob- 
servation, I cannot understand, for I am a diligent reader of 
that journal, and rarely miss anything of importance. ‘The 
editorial article to which you replied, I did see, and it annoyed 
me. Your criticism of it is a crushing one. I am surprised 
to hear what you say about the sentiment of the masters at 
Groton, but am glad to know that the Head-master dissociates 
himself from them on this point. I agree with you in thinking 

491 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


that the acceptance by Mr. Roosevelt of a nomination, would 
be demoralizing to an extent almost incalculable. It would 
cancel the good effect of all his preaching. . . . 


To tHe Hon. CHARLES ANDREWS 


Dec. 10, 1907. 
My Dear Jupce ANDREws: | 

Your letter of yesterday has just reached me. I cannot for 
the life of me imagine who sent you the books. Glad as I 
should be to have them receive a reading at your hands, I should 
have thought it rather forthputting to force them upon your 
attention. If you have time to read only one of them, I wish 
it might be that entitled 4 National Church, since in it I have 
aimed to develop a justification of the national Church prin- 
ciple which has not, so far as I know, been elsewhere made out 
on the same lines. 

I am taking it for granted that the three books to which you 
refer are The Church Idea, The Peace of the Church, and A 
National Church. 'The three constitute a sort of trilogy, and 
have really only one theme, variously treated. The Church 
Idea is interesting as having contained the first suggestion of 
the Quadrilateral. It was written early in my ministry in 
Worcester, and was published in the year of the Vatican Coun- 
cil, 1870. The Peace of the Church was a defence of the 
Quadrilateral after the same had been taken up and promul- 
gated by the Lambeth Conference, while 4 National Church 
aims at dealing with the philosophy of ecclesiastical nationalism 
as something to be first achieved, before a true ecumenicity 
(constitutional as contrasted with absolutist, and representa- 
tive as contrasted with centralized) can possibly be attained. 

My notions on all these subjects, such as they are, you are 
quite familiar with, since I have pressed them perhaps too per- 
sistently upon the assembly in which we have sat together as 
fellow members for so many years. You may, however, feel 
some interest in seeing them treated more elaborately than in 
offhand speeches has been possible. Anyhow, if you think well 
of the books, I shall think the better of them on that account. 

492 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


December 19, 1907. 
My Dear Mr. Wisner: 

Suggestions are always in order, and I am sorry that you 
should have questioned for a moment my willingness to receive 
them. JI am only sorry that they do not come oftener from 
those who think that things are not going precisely as they 
ought to go. I must, in all honesty, however, confess that I 
differ in judgment with you and the author of the letter to The 
Tribune. Nor is my ground of difference wholly a sentimental 
one. It seems strange to me that, while the national Forester 
is urging upon the American people the importance of tree- 
raising as a remunerative form of agriculture, voices should 
be raised in protest against those who are simply providing a 
market for the crop. 

If the use of poplar trees for the purpose of making the 
paper on which our newspapers are printed moves men all over 
the country to the planting and raising of poplar trees for the 
market, why should not a demand for Christmas trees prompt 
people who own woodland to use it for the propagation of 
these? You are a business man and I am not; and perhaps 
there is a flaw in my economic argument. If so, I shall be glad 
to have you point it out. But wholly aside from this phase of 
the matter, I feel strongly that the cheerfulness encouraged by 
such a use of pine trees as is annually made at Christmas in 
Grace Church, fully justifies even the sacrifice on a considerable 
scale of that form of lower life which we know as vegetation. 
I do not think that the trees would be half so well occupied 
standing all alone and unobserved in the woods through the long 
Winter, as they are when engaged in adorning and beautifying 
the interior of a house of prayer. Here again I may be wrong; 
but these are my sentiments. 


December 24, 1907. 
My Dear Bishop WiviiaMs: 

When a man is under fire, it is time for his friends to assure 
him of their unshakeable affection; and Christmas is a good day 
for giving utterance to such feelings. Will you let me say how 
strongly I resent imputations that have been cast upon your 


493 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


good faith? It so happens that you and I have taken different 
attitudes towards certain questions now agitating the Church; 
but that fact no more jeopardizes my confidence in your ab- 
solute loyalty to the Faith, than does the thick weather we 
have been having lately in these parts disturb my belief in the 
existence of the sun. 

Please do not think it forthputting of me to express these 
feelings; but remember that they are dictated by genuine 
respect and regard. 


New Year’s Eve, 1907. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. . . The whole Roman controversy is assuming unusual im- 
portance just now, for I learn, on what seems to be trustworthy 
authority, that a considerable secession of Romanizers is about 
to take place from our Church. I am sorry if it be the fact, 
for I hate to have anything occur to narrow the comprehensive- 
ness of “this American Church,” but it is as true as ever that 


“God moves in a mysterious way 
His wonders to perform,” 


and out of this seeming calamity there may come some unex- 
pected good. The “open pulpit” is understood to be the last 
straw that has broken the Catholic camel’s back... . 


January 21, 1908. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

. . . Lhe Hibbert is an uncommonly fine number, and I feel 
that I am greatly in your debt for keeping me so promptly sup- 
plied with the issues of this highly suggestive publication. The 
discussion over “Modernism” interests me deeply. Here again 
the Pope, like your Mr. St. John, seems to me half right, and 
only so. Undoubtedly “Modernism” is a cloak that covers 
weaknesses as well as much strength, and the question is how to 
discriminate. The true place for the orthodox Modernists it 
seems to me, (and by orthodox Modernists I mean men who hold 
the essentials of the Faith, and are not simply anti-supernatu- 


4.94 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


ralists, like Crapsey) is in our own Church, and I cannot but 
hope that sooner or later they will find this out. By “our 
Church” I intend the American Church as distinct from the 
English, the latter being so tied up by its connection with the 
State as to make negotiation of any sort fruitless. Our hands, 
however, are untied; and we ought to be able to meet these peo- 
ple half way. I hear nothing further of the rumored secession 
to Rome, and I think that my informant must have been mis- 
taken. It is evident, however, from the utterance of the Bishop 
of Fond-du-Lac that such an event was greatly feared by the 
“Catholic Party,” so called. 

I am glad you liked the Sermon in The Observer. Were I 
rewriting it, I should introduce this further suggestion about 
the spiritual body,—which seems to me of the highest impor- 
tance,—namely, that the spiritual body is not so called because 
it is composed of spirit in contrast with matter, that is to say 
because of its being a sort of volatilized or etherealized body in 
its make-up, (since, as I pointed out in the Sermon, our notions 
of the nature of matter are at present all of them in a state 
of flux) but because of its being a more adequate organ for the 
spirit than the present body. 

Thus, we may distinguish, in a way, three sorts of bodies,— 
the purely physical, of which the example would be a corpse; 
the psychical, which is the organ of the psyche; and the spirit- 
ual, which is to be the organ of the spirit; and of these three 
we may say, the first represents what has been, the second what 
is, and the third what is to be. Note in this connection that 
the phrase “natural body,” employed by St. Paul, is in the 
Greek “psychical body,” or as Trench, I think, suggests (in- 
venting a new adjective) “‘soulish body.”. . . 


January 24, 1908. 
My Dear Suter: 

Unfortunately it is not in my power to answer either of your 
questions. I am in ignorance as to the origin alike of the In- 
vocation and of the Ascription, though I am quite sure that, 
in so far as our own Church is concerned, the latter is far more 


495 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


ancient than the former. I do not remember to have ever heard 
the Invocation before a Sermon until I was well on in middle 
life; but at North East Harbor, where Bishop Doane has in- 
variably used it for the last twenty years, I have become ac- 
customed to it. Personally I never employ it in my own pulpit, 
greatly preferring the ancient custom of private prayer on the 
minister’s part, which the “Invocation” usage seems to be 
gradually displacing. The Ascription, on the other hand, 
seems to me highly edifying as a sort of finial, and I should be 
sorry to see it pass out of use. Regretting that I cannot give 
you the desired liturgical information, I remain, 
Faithfully yours. 

P. S.—As to English usage, I am not informed, though my 
recollection is that a prayer before the sermon, after the 
preacher has entered the pulpit, is a very common practice. 
Bishop Eastburn used to say a collect before beginning. 

WV 


To tHe Rev. Watrer Lainiaw, Pu.D. 


February 25, 1908. 
My Dear Dr, Lamiaw: 

I much regret that, owing to an engagement to solemnize a 
wedding on Wednesday afternoon, I shall be unable to be pres- 
ent at the Conference called to hear the report of the Commit- 
tee on Religion in the Public Schools. 

With the first of the proposed resolutions I am in hearty 
accord. The Wednesday afternoon scheme has never, I con- 
fess, seemed to me practicable. A suggestion which I ventured 
to throw out at a recent conference of Episcopal clergymen on 
this same topic, may possibly be worth a moment’s considera- 
tion. It was to this effect: that instead of asking the Board 
of Education for a portion of one of the week-days, we request 
that body to institute instruction in theistic morals at sessions 
to be held in all the school-houses of the city on Sunday morn- 
ing from nine to ten, and that no child shall be exempted from 
attendance who cannot present a certificate showing attendance 


496 








DR. HUNTINGTON AND HIS GRANDCHILDREN 





CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


for the same length of time at some Sunday School or Syna- 
gogue School, it being taken for granted that the pupils of 
such schools would be properly instructed in morals. I believe 
that this scheme would react favorably upon the Sunday 
Schools themselves, as well as be a great positive benefit to 
the vast army of the unchurched. Of course, the plan is open 
to criticism, as all plans must be; but I can see less objection to 
it than to any other that I have heard proposed. I am sorry 
that I cannot be present in person to urge its claims. 


March 6, 1908. 
My Dear Sir: 

May I suggest that trusting to the newspapers is almost 
as dangerous a habit of mind as trusting to the “dollar sign’? 
The moment my eye fell, a few evenings since, on the state- 
ment to which you refer, I ventured the prediction that the 
item would travel the length and breadth of the United States, 
and in doing so would furnish material for countless editorials 
and sermons. Your post card I take to be only the first-fruits 
of what will probably prove an abundant harvest. 

As a matter of fact, it would surprise me to learn that the 
outlay in question put more than two, or at best three hundred 
dollars into the pockets of the florists; men by the way who 
are probably feeling the pressure of the hard times more 
severely than any other class of dealers. If Mr. H ’S 
faults have been as grossly exaggerated as his flowers (a point 
upon which I venture no judgment) he must be less of a “male- 
factor” than the average citizen. 

It may help to allay an indignation, entirely praiseworthy 
had it been based on fact, if I add that immediately upon the 
close of the wedding ceremony, the other day, the flowers, in 
accordance with a well established usage, were promptly given 
away to the very sort of people whom, as you justly remark, 
the Christian Church has the least right to forget. I have 
the assurance of those who assisted in the distribution that 
the joy so kindled was unbounded, and that many homes were 
gladdened by a sight most unfamiliar at this bleak season 
of the year. 





497 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


That there occur frequent displays of vugarity at so-called 
“fashionable” weddings on the part of men and women from 
whom better things might have been expected, I have no wish 
to deny. To see, under any circumstances, a church treated 
like a grand-stand at an athletic contest offends every instinct 
of decency. But the guilt of such exhibitions of ill-breeding 
should be visited on the offenders themselves, and not on those 
whose only endeavor has been to invest with dignity and charm 
one of the most solemn of the offices of religion. As the 
minister of Him who “adorned and beautified with his presence” 
the marriage feast at Cana of Galilee, I give it as my honest 
opinion, based on long observation, that there is a vast deal 
of cant as well as nonsense written and talked on the subject 
of “fashionable weddings.” 


March 10: 1908. 
Dear Miss MEREDITH: 

No, I had nothing to do with the launching or with the 
propulsion of Canon XIX. The only help I gave it was to 
vote for it. That it will prove an unmixed blessing, I very 
gravely doubt, but the passing of it was a just rebuke to our 
Pro-Roman brethren with their narrow notion of what the 
American Church of the future ought to be... . 


March 17, 1908. 

Dear Miss MerepitTu: 

. . . Day before yesterday I received an invitation to make 
a ten-minute speech on the subject of “The Jews,” at one 
of the sessions of the Congress of the Anglican Communion, 
to be held in London this Spring. Apart from the fact that 
the subject is one with which I am not especially conversant, 
it struck me as ludicrous that I should be requested to cross 
the Atlantic to make a ten-minute speech. Probably they 
thought I was expecting to be in attendance any way. It 
looks now as if the Congress were destined to be a success, 
though I confess that when the plan was first broached it 
struck me as a bit visionary. Let us hope that all these big 
gatherings of Christian people, “pan”-this and .“pan”-that, 

498 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


may be but adumbrations of some real council with powers, 
destined to meet at some time future and draw Christendom 
together on a fairly representative basis, with both clergy and 
laity given the right to vote. 

My mind has been running a good deal of late on the Papal 
side of the Unity question, probably as the result of a perusal 
of the recent Encyclical against the Modernists. Last Sun- 
day I preached on the subject of “Modernism,” and called 
attention to the fact, which I believe to be a fact, that the 
present controversy is but the recrudescence of the old quarrel 
between the Pope and the Council. The Pope has apparently 
triumphed in having been given the dictatorship, but the ques- 
tion is, Will not the Council have its innings by and by, and 
a really free church be established on a constitutional basis? 


To tHE Rev. Newman Smytu, D.D. 


April 2, 1908. 
My Dear Dr. Smytu: 

Two copies of your stimulating little book, The Passing of 
Protestantism, came to me by gift in a single day last week. 
I gave one of them to a thoughtful young clergyman and 
have just done reading with keen interest the other. The 
subject is one with which my own thoughts have been busy 
for forty years, and it is an immense encouragement to find 
the conclusions I have reached identical with those of a mind 
much better stored with knowledge than my own. Sometimes 
I think that the result with which we are both of us so deeply 
concerned will come about by the uniformitarian method (to 
borrow a geological phrase) ; but at other times, I feel driven 
to the conclusion that nothing short of some great cataclysm 
such as shall shake the papal throne to its foundations will 
suffice. But whichever way it is to come, come it must if 
Christianity be true. 

I am sending you by this mail a little pamphlet, which is 
scarcely likely to come your way in the natural order of 
things, that may serve as a straw to show how the wind is 
blowing in the Ecclesia Anglicana. The coming Congress at 


499 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


London promises to be full of interest and may serve to adum- 
brate in a small way that larger and more authoritative council 
to which you refer in your book as among the possibilities 
of the future, and which more than one of the great Anglican 
divines has advocated... . 


To tHe Rev. J. MacBring Srerrett, D.D. 


June 15, 1908. 
My Dear Proressor STERRETT: , 

I am entirely of your mind as to the way in which the 
Washington episcopate ought to be filled. . . . 

If I request you, as I must do, to refrain from using my 
name in support of the candidacy, pray believe that it is not 
because of any unwillingness to be known as a thorough be- 
liever in his fitness for the place, but because I have uniformly 
made it my rule, for many years past, never to interfere in 
the slightest degree in the affairs of dioceses other than that 
to which I myself belong. 

This scruple of mine may, perhaps, be an overstrained one, 
but it dates back to the Convention in which Dr. Paddock 
was chosen Bishop of Massachusetts as against Dr. De Koven. 
At that crisis (and a real crisis it was) an attempt was made 
to influence the electors by means of a letter from a leading 
New York rector; and I remember vehemently resenting what 
seemed to me an unwarrantable intrusion on his part... . 


To tHE Rev. Eviot Wuirr 


June 20, 1908. 
My Dear Wurtz: 

Your letter, I need scarcely say, has interested me deeply; 
but it will probably not wholly surprise you to have me say 
that the scheme outlined strikes me unfavorably. 

Such study as I have been able to give to Socialism (insuff- 
cient though it undoubtedly has been) has not disposed me 
to take up with it. My remark upon leaving Carnegie Hall, 
on the Sunday afternoon when Mr. Debs made his Oration, 

500 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


expresses, better perhaps than a long argument would do, my 
attitude toward the whole subject. “The diagnosis of the 
disease,” I said to my companion, “is admirable ; but the remedy 
prescribed is more likely to kill than to cure.” In a word, 
I think the socialistic plan for bettering the confessedly un- 
happy condition of mankind is based on a false reading of 
human nature and cannot be made to work. I am no pessi- 
mist ; but neither am I a blind optimist. I prefer to be classed 
as a meliorist, and to work along on the humdrum lines which 
Socialism despises, until my eyes shall have been opened to 
discern lines of greater promise. 

Such being my conviction and my attitude, I cannot see that 
I should be doing any good by making the Church which has 
been entrusted to my care an arena for the discussion of “the 
present unrest.” Unrest is always present, and will be for 
many generations to come. I believe that the Church’s mes- 
sage, uttered from her pulpits with such authority as she can 
command, will be more likely to calm the unrest than would 
be her resolving herself into a debating society de omnibus 
rebus. 'To try to persuade men to be unselfish in their use 
of the wealth which exceptional abilities have enabled them 
to accumulate, is much more likely, in my judgment, to bring 
about the happier state of society which we all desire than 
what may look like more strenuous methods. Dives cannot 
be abolished, do what we will. He, as well as Lazarus, we 
have always with us. Converting him will in the end accom- 
plish more for the general good than reviling him will ever do. 
Make him realize that he is already in hell, and, “being in 
torments,” he will begin caring for those five brethren of his, 
heretofore forgotten. 

With this appropriate reference to to-morrow’s Gospel, I 
subscribe myself, 

Ever faithfully and affectionately yours. 


June 20, 1908. 

My Dear Mr. 

You could not possibly have a higher aim in your ministerial 

life than that of aiding in some measure the building up of the 
501 





WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Church of the Reconciliation, and it rejoices my heart to find 
a young man of promise to whom this ideal already is dear. 
It is not much that any of us can do in so vast a campaign; 
but to be permitted to do anything is a high privilege. 

As to your theological course, what I would first of all 
suggest is that you get yourself recognized as a candidate 
for Orders as soon as possible, so that all your time may count 
when it comes to the question of ordination. As to semi- 
naries, I would, if I were you, take a year at Union, with a 
special view to becoming well grounded in Exegesis, a year 
at the General for Dogmatics and Liturgics, and a year at 
Oxford for History, Polity, and Social Science. In view of 
what you say about your interest in Union Seminary, I am 
disposed to withdraw my suggestion of a year at Cambridge, 
since the “liberal” side of things will be just as much in evi- 
dence in the one school as at the other. Probably at which- 
ever school you enter they will try to make it out that you 
ought to take the full course, so as to win the degree: but 
to tell the truth, I do not consider a degree in Divinity of 
the slightest value, if it is secured at the cost of a less com- 
prehensive course of study than might otherwise be had. A 
college degree is of the utmost importance; but that once se- 
cured, other degrees may be left to take care of themselves. 
The main thing is to get the requisite knowledge. 

For myself, I was so bitterly prejudiced against theologi- 
cal seminaries as such, when I was your age, that I avoided 
them altogether. On some accounts I have lived to regret 
having done so; but, on the whole, I am not sure that I am 
sorry. ‘To set out in life “stamped” as a General Seminary 
man, or an Alexandria man, or any other kind of a seminary 
man, seemed and still seems to me most undesirable All such > 
earmarks you can avoid if you follow the eclectic scheme which 
I have outlined, or some course similar. .. . 


July 2, 1908. 
My Dear Frienp: 
Your letter, forwarded from New York, has just reached 
me. It so happened that only a few moments before I re- 
502 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


ceived it I had been reading “In Memoriam,” which, for many 
many years has been to me almost a second Bible, and my 
mind had been full of the thoughts which that great Christian 
poem suggests. Among the passages I read was the one in 
which the poet imagines himself weaving for himself in his 
great sorrow a crown of thorns. 


“They call’d me fool, they called me child; 
I found an angel of the night; 
The voice was low, the look was bright ; 
He looked upon my crown and smiled ; 


“He reached the glory of a hand, 
That seemed to touch it into leaf; 
The voice was not the voice of grief, 
The words were hard to understand.” 


Yes, the words of eternal life are hard to understand, but 
we Christians believe that a time is coming when they will 
be easily intelligible. 

You have my sympathy, dear friend, and may always count 
on it whenever you feel a need of it. With faithful affection 
I am yours ever. 


North East Harbor, 
Sept. 16, 1908. 
My Dear Mrs. Sacers: 

I have had some difficulty in procuring your address, other- 
wise you would have had from me before this an expression 
of sympathy with you in the sorrow which the loss of a dearly 
loved brother has brought into your life. My friendship (for 
it was more than mere acquaintance) with Mr. Redner began 
more than forty years ago, and it has continued unbroken 
from that time. Though we seldom met and rarely communi- 
cated with each other by letter, we always greeted each other 
when we did meet, as if we had only parted the day before. 
I am glad to have had the honor of naming his immortal 


503 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


hymn-tune “St. Louis.” 1 He deserved such canonization. 
Believe me, dear Mrs. Sagers, 
Yours ever faithfully. 


North East Harbor, Sept. 23: 1908. 
My ‘Dear FRrienp: 

It lightens perceptibly the burden of the three score years 
and ten to have you write so cheerfully and hopefully. A 
man’s natural temptation, when the Psalmist’s limit, not in- 
deed of life, but of useful life has been reached, is to lie back, 
saying to himself, “Now the race is over and done. I will 
be content with watching the others.” Then again it is so 
hard to believe that the people who have been listening to my 
talk from the pulpit for a quarter of a century do, really and 
truly, care to hear any more of it. They know all my 
thoughts; my way of looking at things is as familiar to them 
as the sidewalk in front of Grace Church; would not another 
and a fresher voice more effectively serve to keep alive in them 
that spiritual flame which tends so early to flicker and burn 
low? From this evil mood your confident words have done 
something to rouse me. Thank you for the lift. 


N. E. Harbor, 
Sept. 24, 1908. 
Dear Howarp: 

Your telegram and Anne’s letter both of them reached me 
in due time, and I am writing to express my appreciation of 
your kindness. The day was fine, two of my children and 
seven of my grandchildren were with me, and 70 candles around 
a cake of sparkling whiteness lighted my way across the 
Psalmist’s limit. So far so good. Now for the time that — 
remaineth. 


To tHe Rev. Martin AIGNER 


October 15, 1908. 
My Dear Mr. Atcner: 
Your interesting paper reminiscent of the Richmond Con- 
1 The setting written for Phillips Brooks’s “O Little Town of Bethlehem.” 
504 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


vention came to hand this morning; and in reading it, I have 
found myself agreeing with you at almost every point. 

The main exception has to do with what you say about the 
action of the deputies with respect to the Articles of Religion. 
It can hardly be said of a resolution, which had back of it 
the unanimous approval of the Committee on Amendments to 
the Constitution, that it suffered a serious defeat, even though 
it did fail to pass in a depleted house at the end of the ses- 
sion. 'The movement in favour of disestablishing the articles 
gained quite as much headway as I supposed it could possibly 
do in the Convention where it was brought forward for the 
first time. Moreover, the vote when taken was not directly 
upon the merits of the question; but, if I remember rightly, 
on a resolution of reference. I feel as sure as one can of 
anything future in the way of ecclesiastical legislation that the 
Articles will be disestablished before many years... . 


To THE Rev. Joun W. Suter 


October 15, 1908. 

My Dear SurTeEr: 

The distinctions drawn in the paper which you enclose are, 
I think, in line with what most liberal scholars hold with respect 
to the use of the Pater Noster. I have to confess myself, 
however, wholly out of sympathy with them. I cannot help 
feeling that the saying of the Lord’s Prayer in public worship 
ought to be the signal for all to join. This seems to be the 
natural interpretation of the words, “the people, still kneeling, 
and repeating it with him, both here, and wheresoever else it 
is used in Divine Service.” The various clauses whereby it is 
sought to explain away the “wheresover else” look to me like 
the inventions of a later age. When we were revising the 
Prayer Book in the ’80’s, I tried my best to persuade my col- 
leagues of the Committee to remove all ambiguity from the 
subject by substituting for the words “wheresover else . . . in 
Divine Service” the words “wheresoever else in this Book it 
is ordered to be used”; but I failed to carry my point. As 
things now are, instead of the Lord’s Prayer being the one 


505 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


form of devotion in which as a matter of course all are to join 
(as in the case of the Creed), it is a fruitful source of what 
one may call hturgical nervousness, nobody knowing whether 
to speak or keep silence. 

I am sorry to find myself at variance with all the experts, 
and particularly sorry not to approve something which you 
evidently like; but one has to tell the truth. 

Next time you are in New York, come into the Rectory and 
see how handsome your name looks cut in silver. 


To tHe Epiror or THE Eventne Post 
Dec. 10 1908. 
Sir: 

A preacher defending his sermon against attack is in much 
the same undignified, not to say ridiculous attitude, as an au- 
thor resenting in the columns of a review the strictures of the 
reviewer. I shall, therefore, not attempt a reply to the letter 
in which Mrs. Rose Pastor Stokes finds fault in your columns 
with a recent Thanksgiving discourse of mine. It is enough 
to say that if my ignorance of Socialism, its demands and its 
promises, is as dense as Mrs. Stokes accounts it, this is not 
for lack of serious and conscientious effort on my part to 
inform myself. Mrs. Stokes is indignant at my exhorting 
social reformers, along with the rest of us, that they “study 
to be quiet.” The phrase did not originate with me. It is a 
quotation from an ancient manuscript. In objecting to my 
use of it Mrs. Stokes is well within her rights, but so also are 
those of us within our rights who love quietness, and who main- 
tain that a little more of it would do this community no harm. 

Years ago, in travelling through what is known as “the 
black country” in the heart of England, I remember coming 
upon a little village inn whose sign-board read “The Quiet 
Woman.” I could not but reflect, as I pondered the legend, 
how attractive the open door beneath it must appear to the 
poor miner, coming up to the earth’s surface, hungry and 
grimy after his long day’s toil below ground. Angry de- 
nunciations of the holders of “stocks and bonds” will never 
solve the labor problem. 


506 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


Dec. 11, 1908. 

Dear Mrs. CarMIcHAEL: 

I am ashamed of myself for not having sooner acknowledged 
your cordial words of congratulation dated “Advent Sunday.” 

You will, I am sure, be lenient to my tardiness in view of 
the flood of correspondence which the recent anniversary has 
brought upon me. To acknowledge such of them as resemble 
yours is an easy and a pleasant task, though it takes time. 
It is the “begging letters” from far and near that try the 
patience. One woman in Pennsylvania, having heard of the 
munificence of my parish, does not wait to see my acknowl- 
edgment of the great gift, but writes to beg that I will re- 
upholster the cushions in the Presbyterian Church in which 
she is a worshipper. They are much worn, she writes me; 
“so is my patience,” I am tempted to reply. But of letters 
like yours, my dear friend, a pastor cannot have too many. 
They do him good and help his preaching. 


December 12, 1908. 
DeEar Mapam: 

Since the fact of my having received a generous gift in 
money from my parishioners, on the occasion of the twenty- 
fifth anniversary of my rectorship, was made known through 
the public press, I have received more letters than I could 
possibly answer, requesting pecuniary aid, sometimes for a 
struggling missionary cause, sometimes to meet personal needs. 
I would gladly, if I could, inquire into the details of all these 
applications; but this undertaking is rendered unnecessary 
by the fact that the gift referred to is to go back to the 
parish treasury as a pension fund, the income of it only to 
be used, during my active rectorship, for missionary and 
charitable purposes. 

Since there is no income as yet, and since I am already hun- 
dreds of dollars in arrears in the matter of pledges and prom- 
ises of various sorts, which must necessarily take precedence 
of all other claims, you will, I think, see at once the impossi- 
bility of my responding favorably to your appeal of the fourth, 
glad as I should be to do so if I might. 

507 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


To tHe Epiror or THE Eventine Post 
Dec. 18, 1908. 
Sir: 

Having long been officially in charge of a “down-town 
church,” and that church one of the daughters of Old Trinity, 
I trust I shall not be charged with overpassing parish limits 
if I venture to take the unpopular side in the controversy now 
waging with respect to St. John’s, Varick Street; and to say 
a few words in defence of the course which the much criticized 
Vestry has adopted. | 

Trinity Church, like all other similar organizations, exists 
for the purpose of furthering, in every way open to it, the 
interests of the Christian Religion. Incidentally it has a care 
for architecture and for old-time civic associations, but its 
main duty is other than that of conserving antiquities, its 
main duty is to nourish and bring up sons and daughters and 
to safeguard souls, rather than help 


“To make old bareness picturesque, 
And tuft with grass a feudal tower.” 


It would appear that, after a careful study of the situation 
extending over years, the Trinity Vestry came to the conclu- 
sion that its resources could be made to tell to more purpose 
if the strategic center of parochial effort for the lower West 
Side were to be moved a little further north, and the facilities 
for missionary work brought into better conformity with 
present-day standards. 

It is safe to say that no man in the whole town, clerical or 
lay, could have come more sorrowfully to this conclusion than 
the late Morgan Dix. In St. John’s he had been baptized, in 
St. John’s confirmed, in St. John’s ordained. In the adjoining 
rectory the earlier days of his pastorate had been spent. And 
yet it was his hand and not another’s that penned the resolu- 
tion under which the Vestry is now doing what it evidently 
believes to be its solemn duty. Under these circumstances it 
would seem as if a stay of judgment on the part of the gen- 
eral public would be only fair. I cannot think so ill of the 
venerable corporation as to believe that the motive governing 


508 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


its action is in any degree whatever a commercial one. We 
may trust Dr. Manning to look out for that. 

Some years ago, a parallel and singularly instructive in- 
stance of conflict between historic sentiment and religious duty 
occurred in Boston. The authorities of the Old South, an 
even more venerable structure than St. John’s, found that if 
they would continue to minister to souls they must quit a part 
of the city which had become completely bereft of homes and 
move westward. This they did, and straightway among old 
Bostonians, rigidly and rightly conservative of Colonial tradi- 
tion, an outcry arose not dissimilar to the one we are listening 
to here. What was the result? The Old South of Wash- 
ington Street became the New Old South of Newbury Street, 
wherein, to-day, one of the most eloquent of preachers dis- 
courses weekly to crowded congregations; while the Old Old 
South, purchased after much tribulation by the united efforts 
of all Boston, became a monument, a lecture hall and a 
museum. 

May I make bold to suggest that the distinguished signa- 
tories to the Protest lately levelled at the Trinity corporation 
are the very men, in virtue of their prominence, to head a 
movement for the purchase of St. John’s, Varick Street. with 
a view to its perpetuation as a memorial of old New York? 
The “catholic woman,” esteemed by the local priest a myth, 
but pictured by the reporters as eager to contribute out of 
her slender means one hundred dollars towards the saving of 
St. John’s, would, probably, withdraw her subscription upon 
learning, as she might easily do upon enquiry, that the sacred 
edifice could only be filled by the conversion of great numbers 
of her own people to Anglicanism. But this need not dis- 
courage; her place could easily be filled. I admit that this 
suggestion of mine, if acted upon, would prove a sharp test of 
zeal,—but what of that? 


January 18, 1909. 
My Dear BisHop REstaricx: 
Many thanks for your kind words anent my recent anni- 
versary. It sobers me to think that I am as old as I am; 


509 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


but it is encouraging to find that my parishioners consider me 
capable of working on a while longer. 

Your account of the approximations toward Church Unity 
which you have already succeeded in accomplishing has in- 
terested me deeply. You have every reason, I think, to look 
forward to the future with hope. 

Sometimes it really seems as if the solution of the Unity 
question were more likely to be found at the extremities of 
Christendom than at the heart. 


To tHe Rev. Joun J. Luoyp, D.D. 


January 18, 1909. 
My Dear Dr. Lioyp: 

I am with you absolutely in all the points you make. A 
clergyman wrote me the other day, saying that he had under- 
taken to read a paper at a clerical meeting on the question 
why our Church, with all its splendid advantages, made such 
slow progress in winning the confidence and affection of the 
American people. I cannot help thinking that the inflexibility 
characteristic of our system of worship, or, rather the inflexi- 
bility of the wills of those entrusted with authority, counts 
among the chief causes of our slow advance. If bishops would 
give a fairly liberal interpretation to the paragraph in the 
Prayer Book which immediately precedes the order how the 
Psalter is appointed to be read, and which runs, “For other spe- 
cial occasions for which no service or prayers have been pro- 
vided in this Book the Bishop may set forth such form or forms 
as he shall see fit, in which case none other shall be used,’’ much 
might be accomplished. 

On the strength of this provision Bishop Greer has had the 
good sense to authorize a brief noonday service which is in con- 
stant use at Grace Church, and which reaches at least twenty 
times as many worshippers in the course of every week as 
could possibly be reached by either Morning Prayer or Eve- 
ning Prayer said at the usual hours for those services. It 
appears to me that such occasions as you describe in your 
letter are in a marked degree “Special” in their character; 


510 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


and I do not see why any bishop, exercising his office in a 
region where such populations exist, should hesitate, if he be 
so minded, to set forth a little manual of public prayers for 
missionary use. I can understand and sympathize with the 
feelings of men who love the Prayer Book so profoundly that 
they cannot bear to see any departure from the prescribed 
methods of using it; but responsibility for souls is a serious 
matter; and in our character as fishers of men we ought to be 
provided with bait of a sort that will attract and catch. 

I don’t know that I have helped you much; but, at least 
liberavi animam meam. .. . 


P.S. Ishould not wish to be understood as intimating that 
the sacramental offices, which form the storm center, of our 
Church life, could properly be altered or abridged by Episcopal 
fiat, since that would be taking an unfair advantage. 


To Howarp C. Smrrn, Esa. 


March 2, 1909. 
My Dear Mr. Situ: 

The whole subject of the respective jurisdictions of Church 
and State in the matter of philanthropy is a very difficult one, 
and in my judgment it is impossible to draw a hard and fast 
divisional line. That the State undertakes philanthropic work 
at all, is in itself a remarkable evidence to the influence which 
the Christian religion has had upon public sentiment in general. 

The difficulty is the same which confronts us in the domain of 
education, which, like philanthropy, was once exclusively, or 
almost exclusively, the business of the Church, whereas it has 
now become to a large extent the recognized function of the 
State. 

The direct question, however, raised by Dr. Potter’s re- 
marks is this: whether charities started by Churches, or by 
groups of private individuals desirous of doing good, ought 
to be subsidized by the State or maintained by voluntary aid. 
My early association with New England methods has, I con- 
fess, prejudiced me strongly against the subsidizing theory. 

511 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


This theory has probably done as much to build up the Roman 
Catholic Church in New York as any other one cause. If the 
Christian Church were a united body, and not split up into 
competing organizations, the subsidizing method would be 
unobjectionable. As things are, it gives a great advantage 
to the most compacted ecclesiastical body and leaves the others 
in the lurch. 

I know perfectly well how I should feel about petitioning 
the city government to aid the charities of Grace Parish; and 
so far as the rights and wrongs of the thing are concerned, 
Grace Parish and the Archdiocese of New York are on a 
footing. 

I know that I have expressed myself somewhat vaguely and 
may not have given you much light; but please set down some 
of the cloudiness of my observations to the inherent difficulty 
of the subject. Some time I should like to talk it over with 
you more fully. 


To tue Rev. Wituam P. Huppert, D.D. 


March 16, 1909. 
Dear Dr, Hussey: 

It appears to me that the burden of proof rests upon those 
who are seeking to break down the restrictions of the present 
Sunday Law. No new evidence has been discovered since the 
last hearing, no fresh arguments are forthcoming. If the rea- 
sons which defeated a repeal, when repeal was last attempted, 
were sound reasons, they are sound still. It is urged, better an 
indulgent law that can be enforced than a strict one which 
men are bound to evade; but this sort of reasoning must in- 
evitably lead to a gradual whittling down of all law, until 
nothing is left that puts any sort of restraint upon any sort of a 
desire. It will be discouraging indeed if at a time when in most 
other parts of the country the power of the saloon is waning, 
here in the great State of New York it should be not only not 
curbed but even given freer rein. 

We ought, I think, to plant ourselves upon the unassailable 
ground: first, that a periodic rest-day is essential to social and 


512 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


civic well-being; and, secondly, that such rest-day cannot long 
be maintained if dealers, in the commodity confessedly the most 
harmful of all that are put upon the market, are permitted to 
make a profit on seven days in the week, while the venders of 
bread and beef have to be content with what they can make on 
SER 


March 17, 1909. 





Dear 

Thanks for your letter of the twelfth. It was a great pleas- 
ure to me to meet again. ... As for ’s *Modern- 
ism,” so long as it does not lead him to the belief that God is 
a “principle” and Jesus Christ an “idea,” as the Christian 
Scientists (and some others) do vainly teach, he will, I cannot 
help thinking, find himself more at liberty within Anglican walls 
than anywhere outside of them. 

Sir Oliver Lodge’s well meant efforts to square Religion and 
Science leave Religion (at least the Christian religion) so much 
in the lurch, that help from that quarter is hardly to be ex- 
pected. Anything more puerile'than the leading article in the 
last Hibbert Journal, reporting progress in the matter of com- 
munication with the unseen world, I have seldom read. We 
need a new Swift to write a new Voyage to Laputa. Doubtless 
there is, Just now, a widespread apathy with respect to the 
things of the spirit: but has there ever been in history long con- 
tinued enthusiasm on this head? Has it not always demanded, 
as it now demands, incessant effort to keep the things of the 
spirit at the fore, and to save men from the idolatry of esthetics, 
romantics, and all the rest of it? 

There certainly is much to encourage us, as religious men, 
in the ethical zeal that now prevails in our large cities. This 
is a part of religion, even though, of course, far from being 
the whole of it; and we ought to be thankful for even so much 
as this. By and by, after the Darwin-Huxley-Spencer wave 
has crested, things may be different. We are now feeling the 
full impact of that tremendous breaker. It is my belief that 
Personality will survive all this long effort to deify Imper- 
sonality. ... 








518 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 
To JonHn WANAMAKER, Esa. 


Good Friday, 1909. 
My Dear Mr. WANAMAKER: 

It has been with real sorrow that I have learned of your hav- 
ing shortened by fifteen minutes the daily “nooning” (as we 
used to call it in New England) of your vast host of work 
people. I trust that you will not think it intrusive of me, if, 
as your next-door neighbor, deeply interested in the well-being 
of all under your wide-spreading roof, I venture to plead for 
a return to the old usage with respect to the hour of recess. 
We of Grace Church feel that, even from an economic point 
of view, it would, in the long run, probably be worth your while 
to allow your people the opportunity of daily prayer and daily 
Bible teaching which we freely offer them at the noon hour. 
From this, large numbers are now, to all intents and purposes, 
cut off in consequence of the recent change in your time-table. 

But this point I do not press. Neither am I willing to put 
myself in the position of seeming to dictate to another man 
the way in which he may best conduct a business which is his 
and not mine. My only wish, on this day sacred to the pre- 
ciousness of self-sacrifice, is to plead with you, on the score 
both of your well-earned repute as an organizer, and still more 
of your good name as one who cares for the souls as well as 
the bodies of those who serve you, to give back what has been 
taken away. 

The thanks of thousands will be yours if you can see your 
way to doing this; and if the thanks of one more are of any 
value to you, you shall have his also, for believe me, my dear 
Mr. Wanamaker, I am, 

Most truly yours. 


To tHe Rev. Joun I. YELuLoTT, JR. 


May 7, 1909. 
My Dear Mr. YELLorT: 
A man is generally himself responsible for being misunder- 
stood, and I think there must have been some lack of clearness 


514 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


in what I wrote about the earthquake to lead to your getting 
the impression that I thought we ought to wait with folded 
hands the final issue of things. 

I wholly agree with you that preventable and remediable 
evils should engage man’s attention to the very utmost, and I 
am as far as possible from thinking that Kismet should be the 
watchword for Christians. The human incompetency which I 
had in mind was incompetency of another sort, namely, our 
inability to judge of God’s purposes before they ripen. The 
original title of my sermon before it went to print was Finis 
Opus Coronat. It cannot be denied that God’s providential 
government of the world is full of puzzles and perplexities which 
for all that we can see are at present insoluble. With regard 
to these, it appears to me that tarrying the Lord’s leisure is 
man’s true wisdom. I shall be very glad, all the same, to read 
your paper, and trust that you will send it to me. 


To tue Rev. Dr. Newman SmytTueE 


May 15, 1909. 
Dear Dr. SmyrHe: 

Bishop Brewster has kindly sent me a copy of the sugges- 
tions which he and Dr. Goodwin have concurred in making with 
reference to the wording of your proposed report. I am writ- 
ing to say that these suggestions have my concurrence, though 
I have written Bishop Brewster that personally I should be 
glad to see mention made of the possibility of recognizing Con- 
firmation by the local pastor of a parish as the equivalent of 
Confirmation by the bishop of the diocese, there being, as I 
understand, sufficient precedent to justify such a view. 

I have just come from the Church Congress in Boston, where 
the whole subject of visible Church Unity was under discussion, 
and, on the whole, brought away with me considerable encour- 
agement. Bishop Doane’s utterance on the subject was large- 
minded and comprehensive, and, what was equally to the point, 
was most warmly received by the large audience gathered in 
the Tremont Temple. 

Of course, no one of us is sanguine of immediate results; 


515 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


but if what we are attempting in the first decade of the 
twentieth century is destined to help forward in the least degree 
the cause which in the latest decade may have triumphed, we 
may be well content. 


To rue Rev. A. St. Joun Cuampre, D.D. 


May 18, 1909. 
Dear Dr. CHamBRre: 

I greatly wish that it were in my power to be present at the 
silver wedding of you and your parish; but duties here make 
a journey to Lowell impossible. .. . 

One reminder of St. Anne’s may be said to have followed me 
all the days of my life, to wit, the Metcalf family. One of my 
earliest recollections is that of seeing Mr. Isaac Metcalf lead- 
ing the church psalmody and hymnody (for in those days we 
had metrical psalms as well as hymns) from the far away 
organ loft, to me a beautiful terra incognita. When I went 
to Worcester as rector of All Saints, whom should I see in the 
gallery but Mr. Isaac Metcalf again with his quartet. And 
now here in Grace Church within a few feet of me every Sun- 
day stands his stalwart son James, singing a bass that makes 
the arches tremble. Thus are my childhood and old age har- 
moniously linked together. 

Thanking you, my dear Dr. Chambré, for the courtesy of an 
invitation which I should greatly like to accept, and wishing 
for you and Mrs. Chambré all the blessings that rightfully 
accompany a long rectorship, I remain, 


Faithfully yours, 


To tue Rev, Watrer Laripiaw, Px.D. 


March 19, 1909. 
My Dear Dr, Lariaw: 

In response to your request of the eleventh, I write to say 
that, although the proposed Church Efficiency Exhibit strikes 
me as running a little counter to certain warnings in the Sermon 
on the Mount, I am inclined to think that, on the whole, such 

516 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


a showing will do good, if in no other way, at least by making 
it clear that the churches which keep open house for seven 
days in the week earn their salt, to wit, their exemption from 
taxation by the civil authorities. I hate the expression “in- 
stitutional church,” which seems to imply two sorts of houses 
of God—those that make themselves useful and those that ex- 
cuse themselves from doing so. Still, I suppose the phrase must 
be allowed to stand until it has brought about a general open- 


ing of barred doors. 


To rue Rev. C. L. SLATTERY 


Monday, May 31, 1909. 
Dear Dr. SLATTERY: 

I hesitate gravely about advising you as to the acceptance of 
the important post to which you have been elected. Were I 
regarding only your own personal happiness I should strongly 
recommend your remaining in the active ministry,—so much is 
the cure of souls more delightful to the curator than the cure 
of minds. On the other hand, when I consider the sore need 
in which the G. T. S. stands of a little more fresh air than it 
now enjoys, I am strongly moved to say, Go,—or rather Come. 
To a great extent your decision ought, I think, to be governed 
by your own mental attitude towards the particular branch of 
learning to which you are asked to devote your energies. You 
have shown yourself an adept in Ecclesiastical biography; if 
you feel equally competent to grapple with Ecclesiastical 
history, that of itself ought to be a strong argument. 


To Howarp TownsEnp, Esa. 


June 10, 1909. 
My Dear Howarp: 

I wrote as I did to Mr. , not because I questioned 
for a moment his loyal adhesion to the policy of advance to 
which the vestry stands committed, but simply for the purpose 
of clearing myself from what might seem to be a justifiable 
suspicion that I favored extravagance in administration. 


517 





WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


I am quite aware that it is, in a sense, foolish for a man 
at my time of life to be planning for the future in the matter 
of new buildings, and so forth and so forth; but my interests 
are wrapped up with those of Grace Church, and can not be 
unwrapped so long as I remain Rector; and I conceive it to 
be my duty, while I have any strength at all, to keep on im- 
proving things to the best of my ability, knowing that “the 
night cometh” when it is bound to be much harder than it is 
now to secure means for keeping the activities of this Church 
up to the mark. 

The whole aim of my administration has been to provide 
that Grace Church should be, for an indefinite period, a power 
for good just where it stands. As time goes on, its usefulness 
is bound to shift more and more from Sundays to weekdays ; but 
the building stands at the geographical centre of Greater New 
York, and I do not see how it can ever become other than what 
it is to-day, the focus of a teeming population, who, if they 
can not be reached by the public services of the Lord’s Day, 
may directly be helped by noonday services, such as we now 
maintain, and indirectly by the opportunity of walking about 
in a consecrated place full of the symbols of religion. Several 
hundreds of people enter Grace Church daily the year round; 
and although the outlay is tremendous, regarded from a finan- 
cial point of view, I can not help feeling that it is justifiable. 
For these reasons, I like to think of the whole group of build- 
ings as a sort of fortress of light; and I indulge the hope that 
in my successor’s time, though not in mine, the parish may come 
into possession of the only corner now lacking to our “Quadri- 
lateral.” 


To THe Rev. Lester Brapner, Pu.D. 


June 10, 1909. 
Dear Dr. Brapner: 

Your experiment in Federation is most interesting. For 
reasons which I gave in my address to the Church Congress, 
I believe the promise of Federation on a large scale to be 
illusory ; but every experiment which goes to show our need of 


518 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


Church Unity, even though it may not come to a successful 
issue, has its value. The great thing is to educate the Chris- 
tian community into the conviction that the present state of 
things is intolerable, if we expect Christianity to make prog- 
ress, or even to hold its own, in these United States. 


To rue Rey. Grorce WituiAM Dovetas, D.D. 


June 25, 1909. 
Dear Dr, Dovetas: 

I have received and carefully considered your letter of 
yesterday. 

Throughout this discussion, it seems to have escaped your 
notice that the only power which can possibly work any change 
in the Constitution and Statutes of the Cathedral, is the power 
lodged with the Board of Trustees. It may be unfortunate that 
the power of revision was not divided between the Trustees 
and the Chapter; but, as a matter of fact, it was not. As a 
result, the Constitution and Statutes will be revised when the 
Trustees determine to revise them, and in the way in which 
the Trustees determine to revise them, and not otherwise. The 
wishes of the Chapter are entitled to respect, the wishes of the 
Great Chapter are entitled to respect, the wishes of the Bishop 
are entitled to respect; but the power to revise is with the 
Trustees. I do not, you will believe me, say this out of any 
disposition to brandish “the whip hand.” 

Now the Trustees have appointed a Committee to consider 
whether any, and, if any, what changes are desirable in the 
present text of the Constitution and Statutes. That Commit- 
tee is ready and glad to receive suggestions and help of every 
sort. Especially would any official communication from the 
Chapter, which had secured the recorded vote of the majority of 
the members of that body, be received with the greatest respect: 
but inasmuch as no such communication has reached or seems 
likely to reach the Committee, and inasmuch as the Committee 
has also been requested to take into account the wishes of the 
Great Chapter, and inasmuch as the Great Chapter seems even 
less likely than the Chapter itself to send an official communica- 


519 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


tion conveying its wishes, I cannot but continue to be of the 
opinion that the course outlined in my last letter would be a 
wise one. Whether it shall be pursued depends upon the assent 
or dissent of my colleagues on the Committee. Upon this point 
I am now engaged in informing myself, as Chairman. 


June 25, 1909. 
Dear Miss Merepitu: 


I’m doing my best 

To auto-suggest, 

But the Gout is the test. 

And I dare Mrs. Eddy 

To keep her nerves steady 

When with this “form of error” oppressed. 


The foregoing suggests one reason why I have been so 
dilatory in the matter of correspondence. It is not merely the 
Gout, but the long process of feeling good for nothing that 
leads up to the Gout, that has kept me from writing before this. 

I am dictating this from a sick-bed, from which I hope, to- 
morrow or Monday, to arise and depart for Nahant, on my 
way to North East Harbor. I make the pause at Nahant, 
where my daughter Mrs. Robbins has a Summer house this 
year, in order to be able to put in an appearance at the Class 
Dinner of my Class, which has now been graduated from Har- 
vard just fifty years. I suppose we shall manage to get about 
twenty together out of the total original membership of ninety- 
two. The occasion will not be a hilarious one; but I do not 
feel hike being absent if I can possibly get there; and I trust 
that, by automobiling up from Nahant and returning thither 
when the function is over, I can manage it, Gout or no Gout. 
It may interest you to see the enclosed, which I have written 
for the occasion, moved thereto by the fact that I was the Class 
Poet of my year. I remember hearing Thomas Bailey Aldrich 
say, shortly before his death, at a reception given in his honor, 
that no man ought to write verse when past sixty. What then 
is to be said of one who adventures poetry at seventy? Still, 


520 


CHURCH UNITY IDEALS 


if verses are to be read at fiftieth anniversaries of graduation, 
they must needs, as a rule, be written by men of that age. I 
am not likely to do it again. 

We are getting on famously with the Cathedral of St. John 
the Divine; and really it looks as if we might be worshipping 
there by next Christmas. Meanwhile, a struggle is going oni 
internally to the governing body as to what form the organiza- 
tion which the building covers shall take. My endeavor, from 
the first, has been to keep the thing, as far as possible, from 
becoming a mere replica of the average English Cathedral. 

Kingsley’s stern words about the post-Reformation Cathe- 
dral system in Yeast and Trollope’s picture of the same in 
Barchester Towers, early fixed in me the impression that to 
import the Cathedral unchanged, and set it up, stone by stone, 
on American soil, would be a profound mistake; but there are 
those who differ with me, and differ vigorously; and we are, 
just at present, fighting it out. 

Another struggle has been that of getting for the Deaconess 
Training School a secure foothold within the boundaries of the 
Cathedral Close. In that I have succeeded, and the building 
will probably be begun next month. Whether these combined 
efforts have had anything to do with bringing on the Gout, I 
cannot say; but they have kept me busy. 

Have you read Admiral Mahan’s letter in this week’s Church- 
man on the subject of the vacancies in the Board of Missions. 
His advice seems to me timely and wise. I agree with those 
who thought it would be almost cruel to ask Mr. George Pepper 
to take the Treasurership; but I am not at all sure that it 
would be in any way to his disadvantage to accept the General 
Secretaryship. Were he to do this, we might, I think, look for 
a “Laymen’s Forward Movement” that would amount to some- 
thing. 

I am having my Church Congress Address on Theories of 
Visible Church Unity printed in pamphlet form, and will send 
you a copy when it is ready. The report in the newspapers of 
what I said stirred up your good friend Dr. , who wrote 
me a note of protest, saying that what I urged was “impos- 


521 





WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


sible.” In reply I said that those of us who were working for 
the Twenty-first Century were not much troubled by impos- 
sibilities. _We have learned, as the men of science are learning, 
to treat that word very warily indeed. 

Now, ought not this long letter, especially coming as it does 
from a “lame dog,” to make up for my protracted silence? 


522 


XV 


THE LAST YEARS 


Dr. Huntington that he could realize that his life 

was becoming well rounded to a close. The or- 
dered plans which he had early in his career set before 
himself for the unfolding of his life were clearly coming 
to a successful conclusion. ‘That sense of completeness, 
which was so characteristic of the workings of his mind, 
found satisfaction in the fact that his undertakings 
were becoming well ordered and put away. It is not 
meant by this that he did not desire, as every nor- 
mal man does, to live on. He was happy in his chil- 
dren and grandchildren. He was keenly alive to the 
interests of the day. He was full of hope for the good 
causes in which he was himself most deeply concerned. 
At the same time he was profoundly conscious of the 
fact that in a certain sense his work was done. 

Prayer Book revision and Constitutional amendment 
had been carried as far in General Convention as his ef- 
forts could seem to carry them. His labors for Church 
Unity had borne a certain fruit, and new movements 
in this cause which were springing up he realized must 
be manned by younger spirits. He had accomplished 
the three score years and ten of the human span, and 

523 


| was unquestionably a matter of satisfaction to 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


to his symbolic way of thinking the ancient text had 
more significance than for some. 

So far as his parish was concerned, he had rounded 
out a quarter of a century. When this moment came, 
he felt it incumbent upon him to resign. He realized 
that he had done all that he could probably accomplish 
in his lifetime for the development of the parish which 
he loved. He regretted possible losses of initiative and 
inspiration which declining years might bring. There 
was not a moment’s doubt in his mind that for his own 
sake, and for the parish’s, resignation was the appro- 
priate step to take. When the parish refused to accept 
the resignation he was nevertheless gratified and glad, 
and willing, if the parish was willing, for the remaining 
years of his life, that they should continue together in 
the paths of mutual service. 

He was greatly touched, and more pleased than he 
knew how to express, by a tribute which came to him 
when he was seventy years old. ‘The form of it was 
such as peculiarly to appeal to his nature. Seventy of 
his friends presented to him a loving-cup, the “Septua- 
gint Cup,” on which was inscribed in autograph the 
name of every one of these friends. It was a token of 
appreciation in which he took special pride. ‘To each 
one of the donors he sent a special and peculiarly char- 
acteristic letter of thanks and acknowledgment. 

The two celebrations of the year 1908 were coinci- 
dent. One had to do with the fact that Dr. Hunting- 
ton had reached the age of seventy years, and the other 
with the completion that same year of twenty-five years 

524 


THE LAST YEARS 


of his rectorship at Grace Church. These celebrations 
were the occasion of a great outpouring of grateful 
appreciation on the part of parishioners and fellow- 
workers and friends. Those who had known and 
loved him within the Church, and been in a sense his dis- 
ciples, vied with one another in giving expression to their 
thankfulness for what his life had meant; and to these 
utterances were added many from those without the 
Church, some of them even unknown to him, who added 
their meed of praise. The experiences of this year 
were in a very real sense the crowning of his life. 
There was to be for him only a short year more of 
earthly existence, but that, of course, he did not know. 
It was granted to him to realize that his life had reached 
a veritable climax, and that the purposes to which he 
had consciously devoted his ministry were in a certain 
sense accomplished. He received already, while still in 
the fullness of his powers, the satisfaction of hearing a 
chorus of “‘well-done” from the multitudes who honored 
him. 

One brother clergyman wrote him, “I venture to say 
that for sane devotion to high ideals, for prophetic vi- 
sions of the Kingdom of God and for the power to con- 
vert them to workable realities, no ministry that I have 
known more deserves the admiration and gratitude of 
men of good-will, than that which has been yours.” 

Another who stood very close to him had written 
shortly before: ‘Do not speak in regard to yourself as 
being ‘cold and reserved’; a man is not cold simply be- 
cause he does not take an ass’s head in his loving arms 

525 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


on Broadway and wet it down with tears. You keep 
your deep emotions for worthy critical times and I am 
glad you do.” Another writes: ‘There is little I do 
in which your influence does not mingle; little of worth 
I accomplish in which it does not largely share. “What 
would Dr. Huntington do? rises again and again to 
check a violent impulse and to point the right direction. 
My life is richer, deeper, better, for this influence. I 
pray that it may not wither there, but take root and be 
alive and pass on into the hearts of others as it has come 
to my own. There are some sick and sad folk coming 
to dine with us Thanksgiving Day. Possibly the day 
will be brightened for them by reason of their coming. 
Who can tell? Please remember you have asked 
them.” Still another writes, “I confess that one-half 
the power I have I have derived from your way of look- 
ing at and setting forth great and binding truths.” 
One parishioner writes: “I want you to know that I 
truly appreciate all that you have given me. I am a 
better woman than I was and I am going to be a better 
one still; and you have preached always helpfully and 
inspiringly to the woman in the back pew.” A vestry- 
man writes, “I feel more proud in my position of ves- 
tryman in Grace Church, with you as rector, than in 
anything else I have ever achieved.” Another parish- 
ioner writes, “With all your three-score years and ten, 
and with all their accumulated experiences and the wis- 
dom of your careful and developed judgment, your 
greatest joy, your most precious possession, is the heart 
of a little child, the heart which my children have under- 
526 


THE LAST YEARS 


stood so well, the heart for which Christmas was made.” 

Letters came from the clergy, from all parts of the 
land. “We recognize,” writes one, “your Episcopate 
in the American church, none the less real because not 
formal. For we have come to discern your large vision 
and wise statesmanship, wherein you are seen as the 
true exponent of the Anglican [American] position.” 
“TI count you,” says another, ‘as do many others, as a 
sponsor, a father in God, in fuller meaning than eccle- 
siastical.” “Perhaps forty years ago,” writes another, 
“T pasted into my Greek Testament,—where they still 
are,—the lines beginning 





“Thou callest, Lord, 
I hear Thy voice, and so in meekness come. 
I falter, but not mine the choice. 
Thou callest. I am dumb. 


I did not then know who their author was. They have 
been an inspiration to me ever since.” 

“If there be any more inspiring example,” wrote one 
of the staff, “any man in whom we can believe more un- 
reservedly, I do not know where to look for one.” One 
writes from abroad: “I hope this will reach you about 
your birthday and express a little of the affection which 
your noble army of deacons feel for you. As one of the 
original seven I can speak for all. Whenever two of 
us get together the ‘rector’ is always a subject of con- 
versation, and you have the love of every one of us.” 
The same writer adds concerning Miss Reynolds, who 
had died that year: “She certainly was a great factor 

527 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


in making the rectory a charming home. 1 shall 
always think of her as ‘the lady what owns Grace 
Church,’ and it is good to have known her.” “It seems 
a jest,” writes a clerical friend, “ to think of you as sev- 
enty,—merely a playful way of expressing your matur- 
ity of other sorts than the physical.” ‘Three score 
years and ten,” writes another, “I don’t believe it any- 
way. Don’t you know that you look just as young as 
ever‘ I never had a richer, better gift than to come 
into the circle of those who heard your voice, loved and 
reverenced your personality and were blessed by your 
friendship?” “The words,” wrote a former curate, 
“that would really express what is in my heart would 
tell you what an inspiration and help you have been to 
me, how wisely your visions have guided me and how 
the breadth of your sympathies, and the splendor of 
your Church statesmanship, I count as great moulding 
influences in my life. They would tell you of a per- 
sonal love and admiration which grow with the years, 
and which make your library, with you sitting by the fire 
or at that little corner desk, one of my heart’s homes.” 

The parishioners determined to mark the event of his 
twenty-fifth anniversary as their minister by giving him 
a gift of twenty-five thousand dollars. The gifts, how- 
ever, outran the goal, and forty thousand dollars was 
the amount presented. He was deeply moved by this 
expression of his people’s loyalty and affection. He 
made acknowledgment to the host of givers in a letter 
to “The New York Times,” which a friend described as 
“so characteristic; grateful without fulsomeness; wise 

528 


THE LAST YEARS 


for the present and the future; with a play of humour 
belonging to all high action.” He declined the gift for 
himself, suggesting that the income from the fund be 
used to carry on such parochial, charitable, and mis- 
sionary uses as might commend themselves to his judg- 
ment, and declaring that in his will he had provided that 
the money should revert to the treasury of Grace 
Church, to become a permanent pension fund for the 
benefit either of retired rectors or of the widows of rec- 
tors deceased. “I cannot but think,” he says, ‘“‘in view 
of the disparity now existing in local incomes, that any 
merely personal method of using this splendid offering 
would seem to my brethren in the ministry selfish in the 
extreme.” He was persuaded, however, to establish 
two life interests for the benefit of two of his children. 

The next year, after the end had come, men of all 
schools of thought vied with one another in generous 
estimates of his life and character. High-churchmen 
acknowledged that in his early life he had been regarded 
as a dangerous opponent of the Catholic faith, and that 
in Convention debate his knowledge and skill had been 
at times misunderstood, and misrepresented by many of 
them as trickiness. They recognized now that while he 
used in debate every advantage which the rules gave, 
and often in his quickness of perception and action out- 
ran the apprehension of friends and foes alike, he was 
always courteous and fair. Moreover, they hastened to 
acclaim the contributions which he had made to the 
Church’s life and progress. A pronounced Broad- 
churchman who knew him well wrote: 

529 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Huntington was a strong Churchman naturally. He saw 
no hope for what he cared for—one Church of Christian peo- 
ple—but to influence the strong party in the Church, the High 
Churchmen. He went with them all he could, to lead them 
where he would. He was Broad in the sense of inclusive, not 
in the sense of Liberal. He cared a great deal for dogma. He 
had a New England conscience. With it he had a statesmanlike 
sense of sacrificing many minor things which he much cared 
for, for the sake of the great things which he believed the 
Church could not do without. He loved to lead, and no man 
led better,—but he was ready to set anybody else leading and 
to seem to follow, if that was the best way to attain his purpose. 
He cared nothing about party and he could pare down principle 
to its essential core if need be. He was fearless; he was cau- 
tious. He could give away, but he couldn’t give up. He 
would go round a stumbling block and seem to have forgotten 
it, and then would come back to it and go through it or over it 
at last. I liked him always, admired him immensely, and am 
glad that the editor of the Living Church shared the admiration, 
on whatever different grounds from mine. 

He was a born debater, seeing his point and seizing it. As 
he spoke his figure heightened, his face glowed, his eye kindled. 
He held his emotions in command, yet seemed eyer on the point 
of letting himself go. In severe lucid English he said precisely 
what he wanted to say, no word more or less. He wasted no 
time on being eloquent or being clever. He led the House of 
Deputies as no one else did within my memory. His cheerful 
patience with dullness, his alert vigilance, his swift detection 
of a blunder or a fallacy, his instant submission to an adverse 
ruling, followed by an immediate presentation of the same mat- 
ter in a new and irresistible form, were delightful to witness. 
His bow was always strung. His mind worked without effort. 
Its issue came like a flash, a flash illuminative and not blind- 
ing, with no zigzagging sport among the clouds but tracing the 
path of a keen bolt that went to its mark and accomplished 
what it went for. I ventured to urge him once that he should 
always preach without book. He shook his head, and said, 


530 


THE LAST YEARS 


“T cannot do it.” “You do it so easily on the floor of the House 
of Deputies,” I rejoined. “Ah! but in the pulpit I miss the 
gaudium certaminis, the exhilaration of opposition.” “But,” 
I persisted, ‘‘Can’t you call up the vision of the world and flesh 
and the devil in the best pews up and down the middle aisle?” 
“No,” was his answer, “I am sorry to say that I cannot.” A 
less charitable mind than his might possibly have recognized 
them more easily. 


Still another clergyman who had known him well, in 
endeavoring to answer the question what there was 
about Dr. Huntington which seems perennial, comes to 
the conclusion that he was different from the ordinary 
man in that he was not interested in himself. “He was 
far from the moth and rust of self-interest. He did 
not exhibit in his conversation more interest in his own 
opinions than in that about which the opinions were ex- 
pressed. He had no small talk, nor was he capable of 
conceit. His opinions were part of him, and not adver- 
tisements to call attention to his cleverness.” 

Another clergyman, in whose work Dr. Huntington 
had been much interested, wrote of him: “All in all he 
had more of the elements that go to make up a perfect 
man than almost any other man that I ever met. He 
had a difficult task, that of so much self-abnegation as 
respects theology that he could even gladly assent to 
anything which promised a happier relation to the 
Church of all earnest minded and earnest hearted fol- 
lowers of Jesus Christ.” 

Another clergyman, who had been associated with 
him in the work at Grace Church, spoke of the pro- 
found impression which certain public utterances of Dr. 

531 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


Huntington had made upon him. One of these occa- 
sions was in connection with the Church Congress at 
New Haven in 1885, where he read a paper on “The 
Atonement.” 

In the course of this paper, speaking of the recon- 
ciliation of God and man, Dr. Huntington said, “ “He 
ran and fell on his neck and kissed him.’ There we 
have the reconciliatory act but how little we know of its 
accompaniments! Possibly could it have been given us 
to look into his face as he thus went to meet his return- 
ing penitent, we should have detected there a momen- 
tary likeness to that great Reconciliator whose visage 
was more marred than any man.” 

“And again,” he exclaimed, ‘none save Christians, 
and of them none thus far save the elect few, have ever 
loved God passionately.” 

The listener testifies that “as said and heard this was 
one of those cries which seemed destined to ring down 
the ages. It would so do could the ages hear it as it 
was said.” 

The same clergyman testifies to the profound impres- 
sion made also on a certain Good Friday afternoon, 
when in Grace Church Dr. Huntington compared the 
deaths of Socrates and of Christ; and he says of the im- 
pression then received that it seems to him that its expla- 
nation is to be found in Dr. Huntington’s psychic per- 
sonality. ‘The greatest personalities,” he adds, “and 
those in their greatest moments, over-pass the circle of 
individuality. Standing before the people, they imper- 
sonate the people, the place and the event. We say of 

582 


THE LAST YEARS 


such a man that he has imagination; we mean that he is 
all that is there, has transcended himself, that he is aglow 
with the accumulated emotion of all the hearts about him 
and his prayer is alight with all their thought. He is 
not an individual, he is a social personality.” 


In a sympathetic and discriminating article in “The 
Outlook” its author said: “Few men have been able 
to serve their fellows in as many ways as Dr. Hunting- 
ton did. This is because few men are so evenly de- 
veloped on so many sides as Dr. Huntington was. In 
his religious belief he was something of a mystic, and 
by his sermons he was able to bring men where they 
could see how all life is surrounded by mystery as by a 
great deep; and yet at the same time he displayed all 
the qualities of the astute business man in carrying out 
the complicated affairs of his church. He saw the neces- 
sity of making the church serve the practical needs of 
the heterogeneous population, and he knew the value to 
the people of the most commonplace material benefits; 
and yet, he did not forget the poetry that is latent in 
all men; and it was characteristic of him to entertain 
with delight the suggestion that there should be main- 
tained in perpetuity a little flock of sheep on the green- 
sward by the church on Broadway. He had a faith 
which was not exclusive but inclusive, and which com- 
passed others whose faith was not as his. The spirit of 
such a leader as he was is even better exemplified not by 
the leader himself but by those who follow him. On 
the first anniversary of the Kishineff massacre some 

533 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


thousands of Russian Jews marched up Broadway in 
a solemn and sorrowing memorial procession. As the 
throng reached Grace Church the bells tolled, and one 
of the clergy stood at the door with bared head. As 
one of this throng has testified in a letter to “The New 
York Times,” this simple act showed to those im- 
migrants that the Christianity of America is not like 
that of those priests whose bigotry has been largely re- 
sponsible for Jewish persecution in Russia.” 

Besides such expressions of grateful appreciation, 
there had come to him in the course of his life honors of 
a more formal character. He was given the degree of 
S.T.D. by Columbia in 18738, and the degree of D.C.L. 
by the University of the South in 1890; Yale gave him a 
D.D. in 1902; and degrees were bestowed also by 
Princeton, by Hobart College, and by Union College, 
where as honorary chancellor he gave the commence- 
ment address in 1903. Most treasured of all such hon- 
ors was the degree given by his alma mater. When 
Harvard presented him this degree in 1898, the descrip- 
tive words which accompanied the bestowal of the 
honor, spoken by President Eliot, were as follows: 


The beloved rector of Grace Church in New York City. An 
abundant fountain in a thirsty land, a fountain of piety, 
charity, and solace. 


It was in 1907 that he was president of the Phi Beta 
Kappa. He had been the poet of the Society in 1870, 
and had been asked to render the same service again in 
1897, but had been obliged to decline. 

534 


THE LAST YEARS 


The last weeks of his life were spent at the summer 
home in Nahant, with the members of his family about 
him. He grew perceptibly weaker as the days went on, 
but preserved all the while alertness of mind, and took 
great satisfaction in seeing his friends and talking with 
them. One of the oldest of these friends, the Rev. Dr. 
Locke of Bristol, Rhode Island, spent many hours by 
his bedside, and there were long conversations of remi- 
niscence of the days of the past, and of discussions of 
the issues pending that summer in nation and Church. 

When he came to know that his disease was fatal, and 
that the end could not be far off, he faced the inevitable 
as might be expected, with a rare courage. He talked 
over freely with Dr. Locke, from time to time, what was 
in his heart. “I am not resigned,” he said one day. 
“I want to live. There are certain things I wish I 
could be spared to do.” Again he said at another time, 
‘Now that I have this disease, why should I be kept 
alive?” Dr. Locke suggested. that perhaps the disease 
had been diagnosed wrongly, but he said, “No.” Dr. 
Locke suggested that it might be for the sake of his 
family. To this he listened quietly, but finally said, “I 
am not convinced.” He was most anxious to live, how- 
ever, until his daughter Madge, who was in Europe, 
could reach home. This he was able to do, and his 
daughter was there before the end. 

The last service to be held at his bedside he arranged 
himself. He was anxious to take part in it while he 
was still conscious, and Dr. Locke testified how greatly 
he was impressed at the strong liturgical feeling which 

535 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


was displayed, and by the care and minuteness with 
which he thought out every detail of the service. The 
end came peacefully July 26, 1909. 

The funeral was held at Emmanuel Church, and 
though it was midsummer, and people were scattered 
far and wide, the church was filled with a company of 
sincere mourners, for whom the life now brought to a 
close had meant much in encouragement and inspira- 
tion. The church itself was a symbol of his life’s unity 
of purpose, and of its striking characteristics, for it was 
here that he had begun his ministry under the molding 
influence of Bishop Huntington, and here that thirty- 
seven years before he had walked, alone, down its aisle, 
behind the casket that contained the body of his dead 
wife. “It was then,” a friend writes, “that he entered 
into the very depths of that sequestration that had 
marked him from the beginning, a deep that shut him 
out, not only from the eyes of his many friends, but 
from the eyes of his immediate family. Nobody ever 
fathomed that deep. Ever after, he lived a cloistered 
life in spite of his intense activity.” 

The physical aspect of the man was indicative of his 
character. At the beginning of his ministry, it was his 
youthfulness that first impressed one, but only for a _ 
moment; for with the youthfulness, which never to the 
end deserted him, there was a dignity which was assured, 
and which never verged upon pomposity in its attempt 
to overcome his slightness and smallness of stature. 
His face, which was handsome in its regularity of fea- 

536 


WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON 


ture, spoke of reserved power. His suppleness and 
eagerness of movement betokened alertness of mind. 
His firm mouth and chin told of self-control and 
strength of character. And withal there was an inde- 
scribable sense of what we call charm. A friend, writ- 
ing of this sense of charm, used in connection with it 
the text, ““His lot was to burn incense when he went into 
the temple of the Lord.” “I saw,” this friend contin- 
ues, “hidden in his face the burning zeal of the Oriental 
and the fixed moral fiber of the Puritan, sereneness and 
severity, force and fairness, honesty and humour, sub- 
tlety and strength.” And there was a “niceness” about 
his appearance and movements, which testified at the 
same time to the delicacy of touch which was revealed 
in his fugitive verses, and in his devotion to a symbolism 
which not infrequently verged upon fancifulness in his 
preaching; and to his scrupulousness in observing the 
exactitudes of law or rubric. In this last we perceive 
once more the influence in his thought and conduct of 
the motive of unity. He was, even in little ways, un- 
willing to outrun by the adoption of an apparently 
harmless practice, which he heartily approved, the 
united verdict of the whole Church, for fear that he 
might lose that whole Church’s confidence and impair 
the final unity which was his sole concern. At one 
time, when a younger clergyman showed him, with satis- 
faction, in his just completed parish church, an ambo 
lectern, with the King James on one side and the Re- 
vision on the other, his polite silence was eloquent of his 
537 


THE LAST YEARS 


disapproval. The Church had not yet, as a Church, 
quite expressed its approval of permissive readings 
from the Revision. 

Monuments to him of the stone and mortar sort are 
not wanting. Notable among these are the Hunting- 
ton Close, with its outdoor pulpit, at Grace Church; and 
the beautiful Memorial Chapel at the Cathedral, that 
one of the Chapels of the Tongues devoted to Scan- 
dinavia. This fourteenth-century Gothic chapel, the 
last of the seven to be consecrated, is named for St. 
Ansgarius. The architect was Henry Vaughan. The 
Kempe windows, and indeed all its furnishings, are the 
gifts of the family or special friends or fellow-workers 
of Dr. Huntington. 

The inscription on the memorial tablet at All Saints, 
Worcester, summarizes his life-work in the following 
words: 


CHAMPION oF CHURCH UNITY 
LEADER IN THE REVISION OF THE 
Boox or Common PRAYER 
A Great PrespyYTER OF THE CHURCH 
Pastor. PREACHER. STATESMAN. POET 


But his most enduring monument is in the consecrated 
lives of many men and women; in the enriched Books, 
both of Worship and of Law, of the Church which he 
loved and served; and in the sure progress of that cause 
which he had most at heart, the cause of Christian Unity. 


038 


INDEX 


A 


Abbott, Edwin H., letter to, 371 

Abbott, Francis E., 12, 14, 21, 188, 
372; letters to, 21-61, 115-122, 198 

Act of Uniformity, 484 

Adams, Hon. Charles Francis, let- 
ters to, 354, 492 

Adams, Samuel, 4 

“7Eschylus,” 43 

Agassiz, Alexander, 11 

Agnes, Miss, letter to, 183, 210 

Agnosticism, 13, 452, 490 

Aigner, Rev. Martin, letter to, 504 

“A Good Shepherd,” 250 

Aldrich, Thomas Bailey, 520 

Alice, Miss, letter to, 319 

Allen, Dr. A. V. G., 108,°295 

“Allen’s Life of Phillips Brooks,” 
335, 338 

All Saints’ Cathedral, Worcester, 
England, 77; gift from, 78 

All Saints’ Church, Worcester, 
Mass., 16, 62, 97, 109, 469, 516, 
538; Growth of, 65-83; destruc- 
tion by fire, 75, 310; first choir, 
69; new building, 77 

All Saints’ House, 81 

“All Saints’ Scrap Book,” 77 

Alsop, Rev. Reese F., D.D., letter 
to, 477 

Altruism, 227 

American Catholic, 400 

American Catholicity, 115, 165 

Americanism, 299 

American Christianity, 82 

American Churchmanship, 399 

American Congress of Churches, 393 

“American Imperialism,” 331 

American Literary and Scientific 
Military Academy, 9 

American Republic, the, 332 

“Among the Kings,” 246 

“Analysis is Not All,” 356 

“An Earthly Paradise,’ 183 

Anglicanism, 199, 338 

“Anglican Ministry, The,” 199 


Ann, letter to, 324 

“Annotated Prayer Book,” 181 

Archbishop ——, letter to, 338 

Archbishop of Canterbury, 293 

“Aristocracy and Evolution Pas- 
sion,” 429 

Arnold, Matthew, 187 

Ascription, 495 

Astor Library, 320 

“Atonement and Modern Thought, 
The,” 433, 532 

Atonement, doctrine of, 47 

Atwood, Bishop, 241 

Atwood, Rev. Julius W., letter to, 
482, 487 

“Authority,” 351 

“Autonomy in America,” 341 


B 


Bacon, Dr. L. W., 401 

Bacon, Rev. Thomas S., D.D., 371 

Barlow, Montague, 341 

Barton, Rev. Mr., 200 

Battershall, Dr., letter to, 483 

Baxter, Richard, 442 

Beard, Mr., letter to, 93 

Beard, Rev. I. W., letters to, 357, 
364 

Beatitudes, 149, 153, 223 

Bedell, Bishop, 106 

Bedell Lectures, 404 

Benson, Louis F., 463 

Bent, Charles M., 76 

Bible, infallibility of, 38 

Biddle, Captain, 181, 395 

Birth, date of, 3 

Bishop White Prayer Book Society, 
142, 146 

Black, William, 209 

Blunt, Dr. John Henry, 181 

Board of Missions, 290, 374, 521 

“Book Annexed,” 94, 96, 157, 256, 
257, 258, 295, 299, 485 

“Book Annexed Modified,” 485 

Boston, 398, 509 


539 


INDEX 


Boston Church Congress, 472 

Bottome, Margaret, 234 

Bottome, The Rev. George H., 234, 
268, 356 

“Boundary Question, A,” 157 

Bourne, Melatiah, 4 

Bourne, Richard, 4 

Bourne, Shearjashab, 4 

Bourne, Sylvanus, 4 

Brace, Miss, letter to, 431 

Bradner, Rev. Lester, Ph.D., letter 
to, 518 

Breckenridge, Senator, 47 

Brentano’s, Union Square, 145 

Breviary, Marquis of Bute’s trans- 
lation of the, 205 

Brewster, Bishop, 515 

“Briefs on Religion,” 250 

Briggs, Rev. Chas. Augustus, 305, 
328, 423; letters to, 320, 326 

“Bohlen Lectures,” 185, 280, 404 

altaretate of St. Andrew, 335, 

Brooks Anniversary Exercises, 360 

Brooks, Frederick, 182, 185, 264 

Brooks, Phillips, 90, 92, 96, 160, 182, 
241, 296, 328, 364, 449, 463, 504 

Browne, Rev. Percy, 107; letters 
to, 127, 130, 131 

Building Committee of the Cathe- 
dral, 358, 484 

Bullock, Governor, 212 

Burlingham, Charles C., 356 

Butler, Rev. Alford A., D.D., letter 
to, 426 


Cc 


California, 421 

Calvinism, 38, 49 

Cambridge Theological School, 358, 
502 

Canfield, James H., LL.D., letter 
to, 444 

“Canon of Deaconesses or Sisters,” 
99 

Canon on Religious Communities, 
100 

Canon on the Use of the Book of 
Common Prayer, 101 

Canons, Committee on, 95 

Canon XIX, 498 

Canova, 477 

Cape Cod, 4 

Carlisle, Bishop of, 296 

Carmichael, Mrs., letter to, 507 


Carnegie Hall, 500 

Cathedral of St. John the Divine, 
378, Chap. XII, 419, 436, 451, 521 

Cathedral scheme, the, 267 

Cathedral statuary, 476 

Cathell, Mr., letter to, 330 

Catholic Church, 190 

Catholic Party, 495 

Catholic Unity Circle, 393 

“Causes of the Soul,’ 250 

Celibacy, 232, 236 

Century magazine, 260 

Chalcedon, Fathers at, 480 

Chambré, Rey. A. St. John, D.D., 
letter to, 516 

Chapel of Harvard College, 123 

Chapel of Peace, New Canaan, 225 

Chapels of the Tongues, 389 

Chaplains, 357 

Charlestown, Mass., 64 

Chase, Henry Leverett, letter to, 
489 

Cheney, Dr., 129 

Chicago-Lambeth platform, 90, 175, 
360, 394, 396, 403 

“Child Huntington’s Pilgrimage,” 9 

Children, love for, 71 

China, 421 

Choate, Joseph, 207 

Choir School, 222, 230, 439 

Christ Church, Cambridge, 111, 123 

Christian Science, 334, 337 

“Christian Year,” 189 

Christmas Holly, 183 

Christmas letter, 86 

Christmas trees, 493 

“Church, The,’ 350 

“Church and the Commune, The,” 
262 

Church Bells, 267 

Church Club, 359 

Church Congress at New Haven, 
532 

Church Congress in Boston, 515, 518 

“Church Doves, The,” 79 

Church Efficiency exhibit, 516 

“Church Idea, The,” 90, 103, 164, 
166, 182, 242, 243, 250, 401, 492 

Churchman, The, 146, 203, 267, 280, 
351, 352, 359, 387, 439, 475, 487, 
521 

Church Militant, 167 

Church Monthly, 57, 176 

Church of the Advent, Boston, 69, 
189 

Church of the Ascension, 244 


540 


INDEX 


Church of the Epiphany, Washing- 
ton, 109 

Church of the Incarnation, 
York, 106 

Church of. the Reconciliation, 162, 
174, 397, 502 

“Church Porch, The,” 72 

Church Review, the, 146, 151, 160, 
203, 205 

Church School for Girls, 94 

Church Standard, the, 244, 369 

Church Temperance Society, 94 

Church Union of Massachusetts, 165 

Church Unity, 90, 138, 162, 163, 190, 
247, 255, 261, 280, 313, 354, 360, 
361, 363, 371, 379, Chap. XIII, 
472, 510, 515, 519, 523, 538 

Church Unity Society, 394 

Cincinnati, 399 

Cincinnati Enquirer, 240 

Civil War, prospects of, 45 

Clark, George C., letter to, 421 

Clark, Rev. Thomas M., 64 

Clarke, Julia Crawford, 362 

Class of °57 dinner, 250 

Class poet, 12 

Clendenin, Dr., 305 

“Clerical Veracity,” 448 

Clough, Arthur Hugh, 187 

Codman, Bishop, 360 

Coffin, Mr., letter to, 129 

Coles, Miss, letter to, 282 

Colonial Policy, 354 

Columbia University, 444 

Committee on Amendments to the 
Constitution, 102, 140, 377, 505 

Committee on Canons, 95 

Committee on Church Unity, 164 

Committee on the Old Testament 
Lessons, 291 

Committee on Religion in the Public 
Schools, 496 

Commission on the Revision of the 
Constitution, 102 

Commission on the Revision of the 
Prayer Book, 96, 145 

Comte, 45 

“Conditional Immortality,” 133, 176, 
182 

“Confessional; Is It Worth Our 
While To Revive It?” 190 

“Confession and the Lambeth Con- 
ference,” 189 

“Confessions of an Enquiring Spir- 
it,”? 322 

Confirmation, 184, 515 


New 


Congress of the Anglican Commu- 
nion, 498 

Constitution and Statutes of the 
Cathedral, 519 

Constitution of the U. S., 406 

ACHE, of Abp. Hermann, 
34 

“Continuity,” 401 

Converse, Rev. George S., 176 

Cook, Josiah P., 13, 14, 15, 23 

Cooke, Mrs. Josiah P., 198, 215; 
letters to, 375, 427, 435 

Coolidre, Rev. J. 1. T.,) 176 

Court of Review of the Province, 
305, 314 

Coxe, Bishop, 156, 440 

Crapsey, Dr., 303, 448, 454, 495 

Curtis, George Wm., 207 

Cyprian, 185 


D 


Dale, Mrs., 482 

Daniel, Rev. Evan, 156 

Dartmouth College, 11, 32 

Darwin-Huxley-Spencer wave, 513 

Davis, Edward L., 76 

Deacon, examination for, 46, 52, 55; 
ordained, 16, 55 

Deaconesses, Order of, 90, 97, 236- 
239, 268, 276, 485 

Deaconess Fund, 239 

Deaconess Training School, 521 

Death, date of, 536 

“Debt and Grace,” 49, 176 

“Declaration of Biblical Criticism, 
A,” 445 

Declaration of Independence, 333 

Degrees, 534 

De Koven, Dr., 92, 102, 107, 129, 
186, 500 

Deputy to the General Convention, 
89, 94 

Dewey, Admiral George, 9 

Dewey, Francis H., letter to, 456 

Diocesan Convention, of 1872, 89; 
of 1883, 96 

‘Disappointment of Jesus Christ,” 
329 

Dives, 501 

Divinity of Christ, 490 

“Divine Breathing,” 205 

Divorce, 291, 351 

Dix, Dr. Morgan, 207, 228, 377, 508 

Doane, Bishop, 291, 414, 441, 496, 
515; letter to, 357 


541 


INDEX 


Dodge, Miss Grace H., letter to, 
442 

Donald, Dr. E. W. 244, 398, 414, 
422, 427; letters to, 334, 338, 351 

Donald Memorial Sermon, 427, 432 

Douglas, Rev. Canon, letters to, 
436, 451, 519 

Douglas, Senator, 47 

Dresser, Horatio, 334 

Driver, Dr., 306 

Drunkenness, 181 

Dyer, Dr., letter to, 208 


E 


Earle and Fuller, Messrs, 76 

Eastburn, Bishop, 52, 53, 63, 64, 
89, 176, 419, 496; election of his 
successor, 91 

Eastern Orthodox Church, 394 

“Eece Homo,” 458 

Eddy, Mary Baker, 334, 520 

Edgar, Dr., 264 

Edinburgh, Bishop of, 404 

Edson, Dr., 10 

Education, religious, 289, 366; in 
the public schools, 423 

Egar, Rev. John H., letter to, 368 

Egypt, 210 

“Eight Common Objections,” 185 

Eliot, George, 258, 346 

Eliot, President, 11, 534 

Elsmere, Robert, 272 

Emmanuel Church, Boston, 16, 536 

Emmanuel Mission, 35 

Emmanuel Movement, 228 

“Empedocles on Etna,” 187 

Engagement to be married, 58, 60 

England, 422 

“England versus Rome,” 416 

Episcopal Theological School, Cam- 
bridge, 90 

“Essays for the Day,” 417 

“Rssays on the Philosophy of 
Theism,” 254 

“Eternal Life,” 414 

Etta, Miss, 183 

Eucharistic adoration, 93, 131 

Eugenia, Miss, letter to, 193 

Evangelical Alliance, 393 

Evangelical Orthodoxy, 479 

Evolution, 67 


F 
“Fable of the Bees,” 428 


“Faith of Our Fathers,” 415 

Farewell Christmas letter, 86 

Faude, Dr., 340 

Fay, James, 26, 55; letter to, 60 

Federation and Unity, 404 

Federation of Churches, 380, 426 

Fellowes, Miss, letters to, 286, 355 

Fidelis, Father (Kent Stone), 185 

“Finis Opus Coronat,” 515 

First Choir School in America, 222 

First Parish Year Book in America, 
70 

First Prayer Book of Edward VI, 
134, (207) 

First School for the Training of 
Deaconesses, 235 

Fish, Governor, 256 

Flaxman, 477 

Fond du Lac, Bishop of, 495 

Fond du Lac scandal, 360, 362 

Forum, The, 423 

“Four Key Words of Religion,” 243, 
414 

Fourth Commandment, 447 

Fourth Commandment Committee, 
270, 355 

Fox, C. James, 328 

Franchise of the Clergy, 95 

Franck, 490 

Franklin, Benjamin, 328, 367 

Free thought, 41 

Fuller, Messrs Earle and, 76 

Fulton, Rev. John, death of, 479; 
letters to, 373, 376 


G 


Gallwey, Rev. N. B. W., 375 

Gambier, 106 

Gambling, 288, 338 

Garden City Cathedral, 378 

Gardner, Deaconess, 379, 450 

Gardner, Robert H., letter to, 486 

Garrison, Dr., 260 

General Convention, 62, 84, 89, 94, 
97 

General Theological Seminary, 261, 
502, 517 

Gettysburg, 93 

Gibbons, Archbishop, 415 

Gibbs, Maj. Theodore K., letter to, 
438 

Gilder, Richard Watson, 247 

Gladstone, 393, 413 

Godkin, Mr., letter to, 320 

“Gold Dust,” 205 


542 


INDEX 


Goodwin, Dr., 189, 515 

“Gospel of Infancy, The,” 309 

Grace Church, New York, 5, 80, 83, 
97, 103, Chap. VIII, IX, X, XI, 
384, 418, 435, 439, 445, 469, 504, 
510, 513, 516, 518, 525, 529 Rector- 
ship of, 83 

Grace Church Chapel, 224 

“Grace Church Hymnal,” 222 

“Grace Church Services,” 223 

Grafton, Father, 130 

Green Mountain, 26 

Greer, Dr., 510 

Grosvenor, Dr., 420 

Groton School, 438; masters at, 491 

Guardian The, 146, 424 


H 


H » Mr., letter to, 339 

Haight, Dr., 91 

Hale, Dr., 360 

Hale, Edward, 24, 207 

Halifax, Lord, 491 

Hall, Rev. A. C. A., letter to, 276, 
280, 282 

Hall, Bishop, letter to, 322, 432, 482 

Hall, Edward, 439 

Hall, Father, 189 

“Hamilton’s Metaphysics,” 34 

“Happy Thoughts,” 189 

Hare, Bishop, letter to, 128 

Harrison, Dr., 209 

Harvard College, President of, 468 

Harvard Magazine, 12 

Harvard Memorial Volumes, 118 

Harvard Monthly, 12 

Harvard Review, 481 

Harvard University, 11, 90, 92, 349, 
378, 482 

Hart, Rev. H. Martyn, D.D., letter 
to, 361 

Hearst, 458 

Hebrew Crime, 452 

Heins and LaFarge, Messrs, 476 

Helfenstein, Mr., 222 

Hell, 446 

Hemm, Harry, 476 

Henson, Canon, 363, 379 

Heraldry, 274 

Herbert, George, 460 

Hibbert Journal, The, 405, 408, 448, 
450, 479, 481, 494, 513 

Hibbert Journal, editor of, 479 

High Mass, 51 

Hillis, Mr., 363 





Hinckley, Governor Thomas, 4 

Hinckley, Isaac, 4 

“Historic Episcopate,” 402 

“History of Testimony, The,’ 273 

“History of the Episcopal Church 
athe: Si 257. 

Hobart College, 105 

Hodges, Dean, 358 

Hoffman, Mrs. William B., letter to, 
378 

Holmes, Dr., 207 

Holy Trinity, Paris, 106 

Hopkins, John Henry, 204, 479 

Hoppin, Dr., 122, 123 

House of Aquila and the Chapel of 
St. Priscilla, 289 

House of Peers, 211 

Howard Association, 191 

Howard, Cardinal, 211 

Hubbell, Rev. William P., D.D., 
letter to, 512 

Hudson, C. F., 49, 55 

Hughes, Governor, 288 

Hughes, Hugh Price, 401 

Huntington Amendment, 467 

Huntington, Asahel, 4, 5, 7, 258 

Huntington Close, the, 231, 538 

Huntington, Elisha, 3 

Huntington, Frank, 7, 8, 25 

Huntington, Hanna (Hinckley), 3 

Huntington, James, 8 

Huntington, Mary, 8, 9, 13 

Huntington Memorial Chapel, 538 

Huntington, Rev. Frederick Dan, 
12, 13, 16, 27, 32, 63, 69, 104, 176, 
182, 381, 536 

Hutchins, Secretary, 377 

Hutton, Arthur W., 463 


I 


“Tdealism the Breath of Democra- 
cies,” 363 

“Idols of the Market Place, The,” 
273 

“Tdyls, The,” 417 

Immaculate Conception, 170 

Incense, use of, 101 

Independent, The, 475 

Individualism, 449 

Ingalls, Senator, 395 

Inglesants, John, 491 

“In Memoriam,” 417, 503 

Instructor in Chemistry, 15 

“In the Days of His Flesh,” 458 

“Invitation Heeded, The,” 185 


543 


INDEX 


Invocation, 495 

Iowa, elected Bishop of, 107 
“Ttalian Note Book,” 210 
Italy, 490 


J 


Jagger, Dr., 129 

Jamaica, 480 

Japan, 421 

Japanese, 413 

Jesuitry, 272 

“Jews, The,’ 498 

“John Richard Green’s Letters,” 363 
Jones, Canon, 384 

Judaism, 289 

Juvenile crime, 367 


K 


Kaiser Wilhelm I, 482 

Keble, 154, 188, 418 

Kellogg, Mrs., letter to, 440 

Kenyon College, 106 

Kerridge, Rev. Philip M., letter to, 
426 

Kingsley’s “Saint's Tragedy,” 30; 
“Yeast,” 521 

Kipling, Rudyard, 327 

Kirkpatrick, 306 

Kishineff massacre, 533 

Kozlosky, Bishop, 359 

Kramer, Dr., 367 

Kyrie Eleison, 154 


L 


Lady Chapel, 481 

LaFarge, C. Grant, letter to, 484 

Laidlaw, Rev. Walter, Ph.D., let- 
ters to, 344, 496, 516 

Lambeth Conference, 273, 492 

Lambeth declaration, 477 

Langdon, Dr. William Chauncy, 393 

Langdon, Miss, letter to, 281 

Langston, Rev. Clarence A., letter 
to, 486 

Larned, Col. Charles W., letter to, 
AST 

Last address of All 
Saints’, 87 

Last service, 536 

Lawrence, Rev. Arthur, 267 

Lawrence, Rt. Rev. William, D.D., 
letter to, 377 

Lay, Bishop, 154 


as rector 


“Lay Element in England and 
America, The,” 204 

Laymen’s Forward Movement, 521 

Lazarus, 500 

League of Catholic Unity, 393 

League of Christian Unity, 425 

Lectionary Commission, 291 

Lee, Gerald Stanley, 389; letter to, 
424, 

“Letters of Eugenie de 
The,” 117 . 

“Letters on Inspiration,” 322 

Lewis, Francis A., letter to, 369 

Liberalism, 170, 372, 479 

Liber Precum Publicarum, 134 

“Life of Bishop Creighton,” 427, 
432 

Lincoln, Abraham, 43 

“Lines in Kensington Gardens,” 187 

Linton, Miss, 435 

Literary ability, 12 

Littlejohn, Bishop, 164, 184 

Living Church, The, 146, 310, 360, 
406, 420, 426, 530 

Lloyd, Rev. John J., D.D., 510 

Llwyd, Rev. J. P., 420 

Lock; Dr. George; ,L.; 
letter to, 368 

Lodge, Sir Oliver, 513 

Logic, 56 

Lombardy, fortresses of, 163, 167 

London, 211 

Lord’s Prayer, 505 

Loring, 56 

Low, President, 327 

Lowell High School, 32 

Lowell, James Russel, 207 

Lowell, Mass., 3, 8, 9 

Lourdes, cures at, 337 

Luther, Martin, 7 

Lutherans, 401 

“Luxury and Riches,’ 428 


Guerin, 


110, 535; 


M 


M , letters to Miss, 202, 203, 479 

Macaulay, 152 

MacDonald, George, 209 

Machias, Me., 25 

MacKay, Rev. Donald Sage, D.D., 
letter to, 430 

Mackay-Smith, Bishop Alexander, 63 

Mahan, Admiral, 521 

Mahan, Captain, 371 

Mallock, 190, 428 





544 


INDEX 


Manchester College, Oxford, 479 

Manchester, Rev. L. C., D.D., letter 
to, 458 

Mandeville’s “Fable of the Bees,” 
428 


Mann, Rev. Alexander, D.D., letter — 


to, 432 

Manning, of St. Agnes, 441, 509 

Mansfield College, 479 

Mante, Bishop, 269 

Marriage, 72 

Martin, Bradley, Jr., letter to, 331 

Mary, letter to Miss, 285 

Mason, Miss Ida, letter to, 415 

Massachusetts Hall, Cambridge, 15 

“Master of the World, The,” 458 

“Materia Ritualis,” 151, 153 

Maturin, Father, 271 

McClosky, Dr., 111 

McComb, Dr. Samuel, 304 

McConnell, Dr. S. D., 177 

McKim, Dr. Randolph H., 
letter to, 323, 433, 441 

Meliorism, 227 

Members of Baker’s Union No. L., 
letter to, 265 

“Memoirs and Letters of the Late 
Bishop Huntington,” 456 

Memorial on Sisterhoods, 97 

Meredith, Catherine K., letters to, 
125, 132-137, 181-193, 195-197, 204- 
208, 254-275, 323-330, 341, 351, 
353, 358, 363, 375, 414, 418, 447, 
449, 494, 498, 520 

Mendes, Rey. F. de Sola, Ph.D., 
letter to, 452 

Merriman, Mrs. Daniel, 334 

“Messiah of the Gospel, The,” 320 

Metcalf, Isaac, 516 

Metcalf, James, 516 

Metcalf, letter to, 191 

Milan Cathedral, 477 

Militarism, 212 

Milton, 152 

Ministry, decision to enter, 14 

Minneapolis, 398 

Miracles, 336, 345 

Miss Porter’s School, Farmington, 
204 

Missal, 51 

Mitchell, Dr. S. Weir, 244 

Model saloon, 414 

Modernism, 494, 499, 513 

Modernists, 499 

Moffett, 437, letter to Cleveland, 428 


486; 


Moore, Francis C., Esq., letters to, 
285, 362, 365 

More, Henry, 56 

Morehouse, F. C., Esq., 480 

Morely, 413 

Morgan, Mr. J. Pierpont, 157, 164; 
letter to, 484 

Mount Desert, 26 

Muhlenburg, Dr., 143 

Munger, Rev. Theodore T., D.D., 
letter to, 417 


N 


Nahant, Mass., 119 

Nash, Professor, 358 

“National Church, A,” 243, 249, 250, 
404, 492 

“Natura Naturans,’ 245 

“Neo-Christian, The,” 394 

Nevin, Dr., 164 

New Brunswick, 27 

Newman, 479 

Newman, F., 43 

Newman, Cardinal, 199, 460 

Newman’s “Letter to the Duke of 
Norfolk,” 131 

New Old South, Newbury St., 
Boston, 509 

Newton, Rev. R. Heber, letter to, 
126 

New York Training School for Dea- 
conesses,” 284 

Nichols, Dr., 63; letter to, 285 

Nineteenth Century, 331 

North East Harbour, 496 

Norwich University, Vt., 9 

Nova Scotia, 27 

Nuttall, The Most Rev. Enos, D.D., 
letter to, 339 


O 


“Objections to Christianity,” 310 
Observer, The, 495, letter to, 341 
Ohio State Journal, 128 

“Oh Little Town of Bethlehem,” 504 
Old South, Boston, 509 

Old Trinity, 508 

“On the Rubrics,” 269 

Opdycke, Mr., letter to, 491 

Open pulpit, 488, 494 

Optimism, 227 

Order of Deaconesses, 90, 97 


545 


INDEX 


Oregon, 421 

Osgood, Rev. George E., 68 

Osler, Dr., 440 

“Our Country,” 299 

“Outlook for Christian Unity at the 
Century’s Close,” 402 

Outlook, The, 448, 533 

Overseer of Harvard, 108 

Oxford, 502 

Oxford, Bishop of, 417 

Oxford movement, 353 


P 


Packard, Judge, 404 

Paddock, Rev. Ernest L., letter to, 
456 

Paddock, Bishop, 62, 77, 92, 189, 
241; farewell to Dr. Huntington, 
96; first address as Bishop, 94 

Palmer, Rev. Frederick, 177 

Paine, Robert Treat, letter to, 379 

Papal Church, 190 

Papal Infallibility, 170 

Paradise, Rev. Frank I., letter to, 
460 

Paret, Bishop, 239 

Parish Year Book, 70 

Parks, Dr. Leighton, 244, 420 

Parsons, James Russell, Jr., letter 
to, 366 

Parish Library 
Church, 456 

“Passing Protestanism, The,” 499 

Peabody, Dr. Francis G., 123; Let- 
ter to, 348 

Peace Cross, 415 

“Peace of the Church,” 243, 247, 
250, 280, 285, 404, 414, 492 

Penn, William, 245 

Pepper, Mr., 488 

Pepper, George, 521 

“Permanent and Variable Charac- 
teristics of the Prayer Book,” 146 

Perry, Commodore, 413 

Perry, Bishop, 257 

Perry, Rev. Carroll, letter to, 454 

Pessimism, 13, 227, 490 

Peters, Dr., 420 

Phi Beta Kappa Society, 207, 480, 
534 


of All Saints’ 


Phillips Brooks Club, 245 

Philippines Independence Commis- 
sion, 290 

Philippinos, 413 

Phillips, Wendell, 17, 207 


Pitts Street Chapel Course of Ser- 
mons, 126 

Plumtre, Dr., 156, 205 

Plymouth Church, Worcester, 77 

Plymouth Colony, 4 

Poetry Game, 10 

Pope and the Council, quarrel be- 
tween, 499 

“Popular Misconceptions,’ 250 

Porter, Dr. Edward C., 107 

Positivism, 56, 186 

Post, the New York Evening, 321; 
letters to the editor of, 413, 506, 
508 

Pott, James, 485 

Potter, Bishop Henry Codman, 83, 
93, 104, 107, 214, 242, 244, 328, 
414, 445; letters to, 277, 419, 485 

Pratt, Mr. letter to, 201 

Pratt, Mrs., letter to, 211 

Pratt, Sumner, 76 

Prayer, 135, 366 

Prayer Book Revision, 84, 91, 94, 
96, 102, Chap. VI, 256, 293, 395, 
470, 523 

Prayer Book, title page of, 263 

Presbyterianism, 264 

Priesthood, ordained to, 16, 63 

Prohibition, 68 

“Prospect and Methods of Prayer 
Book Revision,” 192 

“Proposed Liturgical Review of the 
Book of Common Prayer,’ 147 

Protestanism, 272 

“Punch,” 181, 190 

Puritanism, 170, 347 

“Put Up Thy Sword 
Sheath,” 326 

Pyncheon, President, 110 


Q 


“Qua Cursum Ventus,” 188 

Quadrilateral, 162, 167, 353, 359, 396, 
461, 486, 492, 518 

Quiet Day, reasons for refusing to 
conduct a, 259 

“Quiet Woman, The,” 506 


R 


Rainsford, Dr., 358, 420, 445 
Randall, Rev. G. M., 176 
Rationalism, 51 

Reason, 56 

Record, The, 282 

Redner, Mr., 503 


into His 


546 


INDEX 


Reed, Tom, 327 

Reed, William, 5 

Reformation in the Sixteenth Cen- 
tury, 347 

“Relation of the Constitution and 
Canons of the American Church 
to the Fundamental Law of the 
Church,” 406 

Religion, definition of, 343 

Renwick, James, 387 

Report of St. Clement’s Investigat- 
ing Committee, 189 

“Report on the State 
Church,” 304 

Restarick, Bishop, letter to, 509 

“Reunion of Christendom,” 403 

Revision of the Prayer Book, 84, 
91, 94, 96, 102, Chap. VI 

Reynolds, Dr. Edward, 17, 58, 60, 
208 

Reynolds, Miriam Phillips, 74, 527 

Reynolds, Theresa, 17, 58, 60, 72s 
death of, 62, 73 

Rhodes, Cecil, 327 

Richey, Dr., 261 

Richmond, 398, 405, 505 

“Right Road, The,” 367 

Ritualism, 100, 186, 191 

Rogers, Rev. B. Talbot, D.D., letter 
to, 487 

Rome, 209 

Romanism, 170, 186 

Roosevelt, 492 


of the 


S 


“Short History of the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer,” 250 

“Signs and Seals,” 491 

“Sister Dora,” 193 

Sisterhood, 268 

Skepticism, 56 

Slattery, Rev. C. L., letters to, 361, 
370, 445, 458, 517 

Smith College, 262 

Smith, Dr. Cornelius B., 100 

Smith, Dr. George Williamson, 110 

Smith, Dr. John Cotton, 100 

Smith, Howard C., letter to, 511 

Smith, Rev. Claudius F., letter to, 
366 

Smythe, Dr. Egbert, 401 

Smythe, Dr. Newman, 472; letters 
to, 499, 515 

Socialism, 438, 457, 500, 506 

Socrates, 121 


Soldiers of the Cross Society, 40 

Song of Moses and Miriam, 440 

“Sonnets and a Dream,” 246 

Sowden, Mr., 108 

Spain, 490 

Spanish War, 290, 323, 325 

Spaulding, Dr., 98 

Sook Os) Ki,, 184 

Spectator, The, 417, 428, 491 

“Spiritual Efficiency of the Church,” 
379 

Standard, The, 479 

Standing Committee, election to, 94 

Stanley, Dean, 156, 182, 204, 205, 
364 

“Stanzas, from the Grande Char- 
treuse,” 187 

Stimulants, use of, 68 

Stearns, Dr., 415 

Sterrett, Rev. J. MacBride, D.D., 
500 

Stevens, Bishop, 106 

Stevens, Leslie, 363 

Stock, Eugene, letter to, 422 

Stokes, J. G. Phelps, M.D., letter to, 
340 

Stokes, Mrs. Rose Pastor, 56 

Stone, Kent (Father Fidelis), 185 

Strong, Josiah, 393 

Stubbs, Dean, 243 

Suffragan Bishops, 373 

Sumner, Senator, 47 

Sun, the New York, 308, 341, 364, 
367, 430 

Sunday Law, 512 

Susie, letter to, 480 

Suter, Rev. John W., 471; letters 
to, 350, 439, 495, 505 

Swedish Church, 394 

Sacramentalism, 191, 490 

Sacramentalists, 402 

St. Anne’s Church, 10, 13, 516 

St. Ansgarius, 538 

St. Botolph’s by the Charles, 377 

Sacraments, views on, 66 

Sagers, Mrs., letter to, 503 

“St. Brandan,” 187 

St. Chryostom, 153 

St. Clement’s Investigating Commit- 
tee, Report of, 189 

St. Faith’s School for Deaconesses, 
239, 281 

St. George’s Church, New York, 
277, 445 

St. Ignatius Church, New York, 
277 


547 


INDEX 


St. John’s Chapel, Cambridge, 111 

St. John’s College, Cambridge, 263 

St. John’s Gospel, 400 

St. John’s Mission, 80 

St. John’s, 
York, 508 

St. Luke’s Church, Philadelphia, 106 

St. Luke’s, Germantown, 106 

St. Luke’s Mission, 80 

St. Mark’s in the Bowery, New 
York, 104 

St. Mark’s Mission, 80 

St. Mary’s Mission, 16 

St. Mary the Virgin’s Church, New 
York, 277, 417 

St. Matthew’s Mission, 80 

St. Paul, 171, 257, 495 

St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, 386, 
441 

St. Paul’s Church, Boston, Mass., 91, 
93 

St. Paul’s School, Concord, 438 

St. Peter’s Church, West Chester, 
305 

St. Sophia, 183 

St. Stephen’s Church, Providence, 
110 

St. Stephen’s, Philadelphia, 111, 181, 
200, 362 

St. Thomas’ Church, N. Y., 451 

“Saint’s Tragedy,” 30 

San Francisco, 398 

Sanday, Rev. Dr., 306 

Sanders Theater, Cambridge, 207 

Satterlee, Bishop, letter to, 415 

Satterlee, Miss Constance, letter to, 
321 

Schaff, Dr., 403 

Schouler, James, 59 

Scituate, 4 

“Secret of a Happy Life, The,” 87 

Sectarianism, 168, 171 

Selfishness, 258 

Seminary Magazine, 273 

Septuagint Cup, 524 

Sermon delivered at Topsfield, 258 

Sermon on the Mount, 516 

Sermons, criticism of his, 68 

Seward, Theodore F., 394, 425 

Seymour, Dr., 100, 106; letter to, 
443 

Shepard, Edward M., 304; letter to, 
270 

Sheffey, Judge, 209 

Shields, Dr., 260, 295, 393, 400 


Varick Street, New: 


T 


“Talisman of Unity,” 402 

Tawdry commercialism, 89 

Tayler, Mr., letter to, 352 

Taylor, Dr. Thomas House, 214, 263 

“Tellus,” 351 

Temperance, 68 

Tennyson, 181, 417 

Tertullian, 185 

Thanksgiving night charades, 71 

Thaw trial, 476 

“Theology’s Eminent Domain,” 250 

“Theories of Visible Church Unity,” 
521 

Thomas, St., 450 

“Thomas Wingfold,” 190 

Thompson, Hugh Miller, 479 

Ticonderoga, 9 

Tiffany, Dr. Charles C., 104; letter 
to, 358 

Times, The, 340 

Times, The New York, 528, 534 

Toledo, Ohio, 106 

Topsfield, 5, 49 

Townsend, Howard, letters to, 504, 
517 

“Tract Ninety,” 479 

“Tract Number Ninety-one,” 479, 
486 

“Tract XCI,” 405, 418, 483 

Transubstantiation, 490 

Trask, Mrs., 292 

Travel abroad, 84 

Tremont Temple, 36, 515 

Tribune, The New York, 305, 493 

Trine, Ralph, 334 

“Trinity Catechism,” 201 

Trinity Church, Boston, 90, 360, 362, 
402, 422, 433, 477; destruction of, 
91 

Trinity Church, New York, 508 

Trinity Church, West Pittston, 368 

Trinity College, 109 

“Tristram and Iseult,” 187 

Trollope’s “Barchester Towers,” 521 

Turner, Chas., 205 

Twelfth Night parties, 71 

Tyng, Stephen, 186 


U 


Union College, 362 
Union Theological Seminary, 264, 
502 


548 


INDEX 


Unitarianism, 479 
“United Churches of the United 
States,” 260 


V 


Vail, Rt. Rev., 64 

Vatican Council, 492 

Vatican, visit to, 211 

Vaughn, Henry, 538 

Vibbert, Dr., 420 

Vinton, Bishop, 63, 91, 360, 364 
Virgin Birth, 449 

“Voyage to Laputa,” 513 


WwW 


W. , Deaconess, letter to, 485 

Wanamaker, John, letter to, 514 

Wardsforth House, 349 

“Warning, The,” 352 

Ward, Mrs., 273 

Washburn, Dr. Edward A., 246; 
letter to, 125 

Washburn, John D., 76, 77, 104, 203, 
215; letters to, 209, 257, 259, 262, 
275 

“Washington, A Sermon Occasioned 
by the Death of George,” 258 

Washington, 421 

Washington Cathedral, 436 

Washington, Dr., 481 

Washington, George, 328 

Whitaker, Bishop, letter to, 264 

Whitcomb, Mrs., letter to, 206 

White, Rev. Edward, 133, 182 

White, Rev. Eliot, letters to, 475, 
500 





White, William, 150 

Whitney, Mrs. A. D. T., 335 

“Why Nine Divinity Schools in 
Tokyo?” 356 

Wilkinson, Rey. D.D., 
letters to, 340, 431 

William and Mary College, 482 

i ete Bishop, 109, 145; letter to, 
49 

Williams, Rev. John, letter to, 461 

“Winning of Immortality,” 177 

Wisconsin, Bishopric of, 107 

Wisner, Mr., Letter to, 49S 

Wolfe, Miss, 266 

Wood, Henry, 334 

“Woodbine, The,” 79 

Worcester, Mass., 10, 16, 64, 496 

Worcester, Dr. Elwood, 304; letter 
to, 447 

Wordsworth, 418 

“Working Faith of a Social Re- 
former, The,” 448 

World, The New York, 267 


William, 


h ¢ 


Yale University, 482 

Yellott, Rev. John I., Jr., letter to, 
514 

Y. M. C. A., 162, 442 

Y. W. C. A, 442 


Z 


Zabriskie, George, 423 
Zwinghanism, 490 


549 












bay vie, 



















SMe" TEN the 
% ie hay 
ae 
Ser yc 
: Pine ip Mk 


cdot anne? 


x 
We ist 













- 
: 
‘ 
: 
iy 
r 
4 
‘ 
F 
i 
s 
f 
a, 
3 Alas 
, ¥ 















i 






WDA De 
; \ : Saye taht ae 
‘ Ede 





hig: 
: 


r 





nha 
yur Ne 4 “7 PANN 
Dts aban eee) ' f Wn heat ry hf ae ta hy" , ys va MR Alaa Ts ete Lk 
WAN eyed as prr tem oa Hy MT igre VES vite . F P eT) , 
; Lesa ea ya eal Pe OEY Paths 4 NY : J i i mit i 
Vela ii! | HiT een ti ayn WK) Ny hay 0) Ne hy y 

eae y Can ihitcan’ eM ARs ae dA 

(HAD ANN t 


‘ A oly 
rh Vian! 


a 
i) 


Bhd 


AMD (Ss 


i rghit Ry uit 


+, , it “AN 
bale POY Athy 
SAY hah 


OR 
ait Warne 





| ty 


Kae? 
Dy 4 





DATE DUE 


e 
a 

; 

e's 

a 

. * 
, 





Se f bs 





#LO-45220 


HIGHSMITH 


Payer ray 
nara 
> eat, | 


xe Z 
he 
Les 


; a4 yon 





48 0251 


MMM 


a. 
2 
oc 
4 
£ 
ms | 
. 
ev 
a 
a. 
“n 
f 
a 
ra 
o 
c 
— 
av 
7) 
6 
< 
a 
2 
io} 
ev 
= 
i 
c 
° 
2 
ve 
.=) 
Cc 
= 
a 


1 1012 010 


AMAIA 


beet perience 


Ny ahd iat g 


oh sea! inte 


ES eitrirt Sa) 





i ogee Wy 58 a 


